#that does not mean i'm endorsing it. it doesn't mean i believe this to be true it does not mean i would find this person sympathetic irl.

[danmeichael]

nothing is apolitical but the mechanisms of a story even when not punished are not necessarily indicative of the author's ideology. to not acknowledge the fallible author is ill-advised, but to assume you know the author is foolish. do you understand.

[royalberryriku]

You save shit for arguments?? Get a life lmao who does that...

Basic sources still would take a while to read through unless you want a need abstract summary of all my points compiled into one.

I really find that hard to believe since, again, you think sources can just be read in five seconds as if they're half a page and you'd know. Sure I can skim, maybe find a few for you but really? Again? Online arguments don't educate, they just throw weight around and doing that regularly is... so crazy to me??

Anyway yeah, I don't really believe you. At the very least, it makes me wonder about bias in the university, which I guess isn't unheard of with the privatisation of them these days and if it's in certain places I know there is suppression of certain content but??

Look, I'm currently studying so sure I'll admit I'm not a PHD professor in everything we're talking about but the idea of "oh just show me the saved sources you have on this" is so crazy. I'm on my damn phone and just here to say maybe grouping all Jews as Zionists is bad, but hey since you and the person commenting agree on that point, what is there to correct? You both are polar ends of the "all Jews are Zionists" idea and agree. Congrats, you're both equally antisemetic.

dear jumblr: STOP LOOKING DOWN ON AND CONDESCENDING TO CONVERTS.

this includes saying “ofc converts don’t notice antisemitism.” or “they’re a convert, they don’t know any better.”

i really don’t think a lot of you realize how many converts don’t reveal they are converts because of this kind of behavior. my own patrilineal convert parent refuses to publicly, not because they are excluded, but because of the condescension. the way converts are basically patted on the head even if they have ancestry, are patrilineal, were raised in a jewish environment, etc. or have none of these at all.

if converts are equals to you, treat them that way. most gerim learned more during their process than many of us learn in hebrew school, let alone what most secular “born” jews learn throughout their lives. so yes, converts DO spot antisemitism. they DO know things. and there isn’t an excuse for them to be bigoted, to spread lies about our people, or to side with our enemies or to otherwise harm their community. just like there isn’t an excuse for any other jew to do so.

you are not being open minded or accepting thinking and talking this way. you are actually engaging in exclusion and separation. you’re looking down on converts instead of treating them like they have equal standing.

if a convert doesnt know something or does display bad behavior? call them in instead of making excuses for them. treat them like equals, because that is what they are.

[frownyalfred]

Can I get clarification on your pro shipping post? The example you gave was a 20 year old with a 40 year old, and that's "problematic" (not really), but not really what I think of when I hear "pro shipping". Usually it's the shipping of minor/adult or incestuous relationships that I see getting defended. Does being against fictional works/ships that depict pedophilic or incestuous relationships as normal/romantic count as puritanism to you? Do you see the ship of Bruce Wayne/Damian Wayne as a personal preference with no moral implications?

I think there's a huge difference between being personally against something, and wanting to shame others or ban others from reading or writing something. The Puritanism comes from wanting to limit and ostracize others who don't share your beliefs. It comes from believing that your perspective is the only morally right one.

I think there will always be people who want to write or read about ships like that, yeah -- incest, pseudo-incest, everything in between. By moral implications, do you mean for the person interested in the ship? Or do you mean for others? Because I see that concern a lot on here -- this idea that somehow, by wanting to read/write about something, people are either 1) harming others by spreading this morally wrong ship or 2) harming themselves by normalizing the ship, and therefore making it more likely that they'll pursue similar relationships in their real lives.

We don't have much evidence for either of those claims. People have been clutching their pearls and wringing their hands over "morally wrong" books for ages -- and yet, Game of Thrones is still available in every bookstore. Am I a bad or woefully misguided person for having read Lolita in high school? Is a 16 year old reading a Bruce/Damian fic likely to turn around, shrug, and say "guess fucking my Dad is okay now"? Did an entire generation of fans shipping Wincest somehow have lasting, moral effects? I really don't think so. Not at the scale anti-shippers online seem to think, at least.

I think we need to separate how we moralize people from the content that they consume. And acknowledge that shaming and excluding people for wanting to read something doesn't exactly do much to prevent "moral implications." There's also a huge difference between reading a book, and endorsing the ideas/events inside of it. Same things with fics.

Anti-shipping is very appealing to people because it purports to protect people from harm. Until you look a little closer, and you realize that that protection comes at the expense of free expression, creative license, and agency to choose what we personally do and do not consume. And that that protection isn't really airtight out of your anti-shipping discord or tumblr community.

I think the best we can do is let people write and read what they want -- whatever they want, with limited warnings/etc like ao3 employs -- and ensure that those pieces of content are tagged, warned, and displayed accurately. We need to understand that the only control we have is over ourselves, and what we choose personally to consume or not consume.

I don't generally read those fics you mentioned, but I'm not saying they should be banned from ao3. Just because I might possibly think they're wrong or gross doesn't mean I think the person who wrote them is wrong or gross, either. The more we go down that moral slip and slide, like I said in my previous post, the worse off we will all become.

[narutouzumakiarchive]

A while ago, I made a post about hypocritical Sasusaku stans that pretend to be anti Konoha so they can criticize SNS (despite having no grounds to stand on), and in light of recent annoying discourse, in this post I'm going to go over a case example at length because this perfectly encapsulates the typical behavior of that fandom.

So let's take a look at this post. In this tweet, they mention their criticism of Sasuke being saved from the darkness at the end. Now in order to deconstruct this post, we have to look at what "darkness" symbolizes in Naruto's text.

And when you look at the text, you'll see that "darkness" was attributed two distinct, but sometimes interconnected, senses. The first meaning of darkness in the text was loneliness, plain and simple. Wee see pitch black imagery when Naruto recounts the pain he experienced before he met Team 7, when he was all alone. And we also see this imagery crop up when Sasuke enters into a shroud of darkness after experiencing the pain of leaving Naruto, who is symbolically represented as the juxtaposed light to Sasuke's darkness. Though he doesn't cut off Naruto, an issue which is the crux of their conflict after the timeskip, the panels of Sasuke talking about pain still serve to contextualize his state of mind when leaving Naruto: "If I leave Naruto, I will experience pain, much pain."

The second meaning of the darkness is also established during the Sasuke retrieval arc: hatred. Itachi, in his desperation to be judged by Sasuke, forces Sasuke to seek out hatred in order to acheive his goal of avenging the clan by killing Itachi. And of course this meaning of the concept of darkness comes with a host of attendant negative connotations, as darkness is frequently associated with evil — especially in the Christian mythos that Kishimoto drew from.

Now there is certainly something to be said for Kishimoto's conservative framing, but that's for another post. The purpose of laying out the two meanings of "darkness" invoked in the text was to compare and contrast Sakura and Naruto at the end of the manga and see which particular meaning of darkness was salient in their motivations regarding Sasuke, and well... things don't look good for "sasukeslawyer."

Because Naruto continually reinforces his motivations for saving Sasuke. In the text it's explicitly spelled out that Naruto wants to help ease Sasuke's loneliness. There's a reason why the resolution of their feelings is spurred on by Naruto admitting to feeling pain for Sasuke, the same pain that Kishimoto narratively links to being alone.

Sakura, on the other hand, wanted to save Sasuke from the darkness of "evil" at the end of the manga. It is established during the 5 Kage Summit that because Sakura "loves" Sasuke, she wants to prevent him from continuing on a path of darkness and progressing towards evil. And Sai's description of Sakura's actions receive authorial endorsement. In this scene, Kishimoto builds up Sai's credibility by having him accurately assess that Sakura was quite likely planning on killing Sasuke and that her smile, when she stated she was planning on working together with her Konoha comrades to acheive that objective, was forced. The reader is given no reason to doubt this.

But most significantly, not once does the text show Sakura reneging on her beliefs about Sasuke's darkness. When we get insight into her feelings about Sasuke during the war arc, it is made blatantly clear that she distrusts him which is shown through the same fake smile she showed Sai before heading off to kill Sasuke. Additionally Sakura's to desire to save Sasuke from the darkness is reinforced, this time through another mouthpiece in Kakashi. And athough Kakashi is not the most reliable character, the text doesn't contradict this particular fact.

But Kakashi's reliability doesn't particularly matter for this post because "sasukeslawyer" and most other sasusaku fans believe Kakashi to be a reliable character that understands all of Sakura's actions. As indicated below, she takes no issue with Kakashi's assessment that Sakura wanted to save Sasuke from this negative darkness. And yet, there's no attempted moral harranguing or criticism of Sakura for wanting to save Sasuke from the progression towards evil by *checks notes* killing him. Nor is there criticism of Sakura never changing in this regarding and maintaining that desire to save him from the negatively connoted darkness.

In fact, "sasukeslawyer," has no problem with the idea of Sasuke, the genocide survivor, traveling for years to reedem himself and be "worthy" of the same Sakura who attempted to kill him on behalf of the same village she claims to hate only when she can use it in an attempt to downplay Naruto and Sasuke's dynamic.

Like aside from the fact that this obviously isn't true [Kishimoto wrote 9 pages of Sasuke reflecting on his journey in the manga and not once is Sakura mentioned, because he can't individuate her and Sakura had to chase Sasuke on his journey because Sasuke never came back and Sakura couldn't take a hint]...

On what earth is Sasuke not worthy in general, let alone for Sakura, who's shallow romantic inclinations he repeatedly rejected to begin with. It is Sakura who didn't take accountability for trying to kill Sasuke instead of bothering to find out why Sasuke took the actions he took. She is never forced to reflect even once on how she acted towards Sasuke nor do we ever see her make a single negative or critical statement about the shinobi system. But these alleged anti-Konoha warriors have no complaints about that, and that's because it's not about them disliking Konoha or the elders who deserve to die. It's about them trying to undermine SNS because they resent Naruto and Sasuke's dynamic and want to prop up SS. But don't just take my word for it.

They take the canonical scenes of Sasuke looking at Naruto, which mirrored Sakura's own body language towards Sasuke, in order to attribute it to Sakura (this is one of many examples).

The sharingan is obviously a reflection of love and Naruto was explicitly associated with Sasuke's sharingan on three different ocassions. Kishimoto cared so little for SS that he couldn't even bother to associate a crucial element of Sasuke's character with Sakura in manga that he wrote with his own hands. So Sasusaku have to use filler novels that Kishimoto didn't write, let alone acknowledge, to say that Sasuke would transform a new and unheard of sharingan if he lost Sakura. LOL.

There's the editing the panels of VOTE 2 to claim that Sasuke made Sakura watch Naruto and Sasuke's personal memories, despite the fact that 1. We clearly see the only thing Sasuke shows Sakura is a violent genjutsu of her getting stabbed in the chest.

2. The manga utilizes clear visual language to depict the transition from memories into real life to indicatr who is thinking about the memories, something not present in the panel that Sakura wakes up from which makes because

3. Naruto and Sasuke thought about memories which Sakura wasn't even present for and Sasuke cannot telepathically transmit memories.

And this isnt even all, but the point stands nevertheless. Sasusaku fans harass SNS shippers using fake moral justifications that they don't even abide by. Don't be fooled. It's always been about their frustrations over the romantic tones in SNS. But it won't change the fact that more than anyone else, Naruto and Sasuke both saved eachother from the darkness of loneliness more than anybody else.

[max1461]

@deaths-accountant I will, if I remember, think carefully about your thought experiment and respond to it soon (although I will probably change some details so that it is less similar to current events because I don't want people to misunderstand the nature of the discussion and get mad at me), but, in the mean time, here is a counter-thought-experiment for you:

Suppose there is a guy Bob, currently hanging out in the heavenly realm or whatever, and he is presented by an angel with the following choice:

Bob will be born into the world, and live an ordinary-seeming life. Over the course of his life, the net utility (under whatever form of utilitarianism you endorse; hedonic, preferential, etc.) which he contributes to everyone else in the world besides himself will be 0. In other words, the people of the world (not including him) will be no better off nor worse off for his being born. However, he himself, under the same conception of utility, will receive -ε net utils. He will have N (for reasonable large N) utils worth of joys, triumphs, etc., and -(N+ε) utils worth of pains, failures and so on. Thus, he will live a net-negative life.

Bob will not be born into the world, he will cease to exist.

Implicitly I'm discounting here all the thoughts and feelings that Bob experiences here in the heavenly realm before he is born (or not) as irrelevant, but if you don't feel comfortable with this you can just adjust the numbers so that the net utility of each choice comes out as intended above.

It is possible, I think, that in light of the above choice, Bob would select (2) and cease to exist. But I think it's also possible that Bob would say "no, I'll take (1), I want to have the joys and triumphs even if there turn out also to be a greater number of failures and losses". In particular, I am almost certain that I would choose (1), and not just for fear of death (the above scenario is an abstraction of choices that I have actually made, where no risk of death was involved).

The question is: would it be moral for the angel to override Bob here, "for his own good", and choose (2) for him?

By construction a utilitarian has to say yes. If ε is small the utilitarian might say "well, it's not a very big deal; the normative force behind overriding Bob and choosing (2) is low". But I can think of scenarios in which I would chose (1) even if (I believed that) ε was pretty significant, where this excuse doesn't work.

Also consider for instance... the archetype of the starving artist. The man who is committed to producing his Great Work even at significant cost to himself. Suppose that he has made many sacrifices in order to hone his craft, he's given up financial success and a social life, he lives in the mountains and, you know, carves statue after statue in pursuit of perfection. Suppose that he can rationally conclude that, when (if) he does complete his masterpiece, the satisfaction will be relatively small in the face of all the sacrifices he's made. I mean, yeah, he'll be happy, he'll feel fulfilled and genuinely, deeply satisfied. But on a literal, summative level, that just won't add up to the lifetime of late nights, missed opportunities for social connection, etc., either in terms of net pleasure or net preference satisfaction or whatever. But suppose also that on the day to day level he doesn't feel miserable, he's not suffering. He's toiling in pursuit of a deeply held personal goal, and it feels... well, "good" isn't always the word. But he is plenty motivated to keep going; he's out here in the mountains of his own accord. The fact that he judges that at the end of his life the utility tally won't come up positive for him doesn't weigh on him much. "Why should I care about some number?" he says. "Maybe I'd be net happier if I went out on the town and found a wife and settled down, but I don't want to do that. I want to complete my Great Work."

Is this artist doing something immoral by living his life the way he has? Would it be moral for a third party to step in and prevent him from pursuing his endeavors?

In both of these thought experiments, my extremely strong intuition is that the answer is "no", making choices for other people "for their own good" in this way is not moral. But this seems like a necessary consequence of any kind of utilitarianism, so I can't get behind utilitarianism.

The starving artist example gets to a more fundamental issue, too. I kept saying things like "he really wants to complete his Great Work, and it will make him very satisfied, but he will be more net satisfied if he gives up on that and lives a normal life". Well... what the hell does "net satisfied" mean? How do you measure the strength of a preference? He "really wants" to complete his Great Work, and materially that corresponds to a certain neural state, but how do you put a number on that neural state which is fungible with the numbers you put on all the other neural states of human life? You run into this problem in both hedonic and preference utilitarianism, because "preference" is a neural phenomenon. Is there even a well-defined abstraction here, is there even a coherent thing to which "preference strength" can possibly refer? Maybe, but I don't know that there is. And the problem is that if you pick the wrong abstraction, if you pick the wrong way of getting a fungible quantity out of a fundamentally non-numerical arrangement of matter, then what you have doesn't correspond to "ethics" anymore, right, it lacks normative force. It's just some number.

This is why I say that utilitarian-ish ethics are fine on the large scale, they're fine for the policy maker or the economist, who for methodological reasons simply needs to pick an ok enough abstraction on run with it. But on the scale of individual humans, individual minds, and what it "really means" to treat people right, I don't think utilitarianism can possibly hold up.

I might have made this exact post before somewhere, if so apologies for repeating myself.

[which-item-poll]

Heya! I post daily polls featuring items from various websites and ask "which item would you rather own?" Pretty simple!

Important Information:

- I just post whatever I find on the internet. You might notice a lot of Sanrio/kawaii stuff and that’s just because I’m obsessed, sorry whfjshf

- Occasionally, I will reblog donation posts here. That's just because this blog gets more reach than my main, and I'm a firm believer in that no one should be struggling to eat/pay rent. If that for some reason bothers you, unfollow or block the "donations" tag.

- Just because I post from a certain website does not mean I automatically endorse or buy from it. This includes sites like Shein, Aliexpress, etc. This is a poll blog, it is not that deep I promise you.

- THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISING BLOG.

- There won't ever be a "neither" option, if the poll doesn't apply to you, vote randomly or just scroll!

- My queue is set to one post a day at 3pm est (and I post sporadically in-between)

- If an item/design that I've posted is stolen or has been proven to be a scam, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL EITHER CREDIT THE ARTIST OR DELETE IT! (I will need proof though)

- Please do not come here to create drama...i literally just want to make polls🤠👍

- NO POLITICS

- Anon hate will not be responded to

- All the items are the EXACT ones you'd be owning, so try to take their color/style/utility and other factors into your decision!

- I do not accept links if you're on anon!

- I delete asks a lot (like an hour-ish after answering) because I dont like to flood my blog with non-polls, but i still wanna answer as many questions as I can! So if you send an ask, just be aware that it might not be up for too long. (same goes for donation reblogs)

- The websites will be in the tags & I will always credit Etsy/Redbubble/indie sellers! If you want to promote your store DON'T HESITATE TO ASK, I WILL POST A POLL WITH YOUR DESIRED ITEMS!

(Alternatively if you're an Etsy/redbubble/Indie seller that I've posted and you don't want your items up on here do not hesitate to contact me & I will remove it ASAP!)

Disclaimer: The reason why I don't ask indie stores directly if I can post their items beforehand is simply because I don't have the time. Imo I don't think it's necessary either, no store has asked me to take a poll down so far.

General Tagging:

As of July 1st 2024, I now tag all my items with the category that they are in. (appliances, t-shirts, stickers, home decor, etc). They will always be in plural form.

Examples:

Home decor

Home accessories

T-shirts

Appliances

Jewelry

Tagging For NSFW Polls:

- "Tw nsfw", and "nsft" (these will always be on NSFW polls)

- "Sex toys" (this will be tagged when I post sex toy polls. For example: Dildos, fleshlights, buttplugs etc)

- "Tw slight nsfw" (for very light nsfw content such as: chokers and anything with tiny implications of nsfw)

- "Tw nsfw language" (basically anything non-visual that's nsfw. for example, if I answer an ask about something sex related. this tag does NOT mean swearing, only sexual language.)

- "Tw bdsm" and "tw bondage" (these tags will always be on bdsm content such as ropes, handcuffs, gags, etc.)

RECOMMEND ME WEBSITES:

Suggest me websites here!

Sites that have already been suggested

Main blog: @nekopuff

Other poll blog: @hear-me-out-poll

[tonightillbeonthathill]

Bruce Springsteen endorses Kamala Harris for president

films7 on X/Twitter

Bruce Springsteen: “Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are committed to a vision of this country that respects and includes everyone regardless of class, religion, race, your political point of view or sexual identity, and they want to grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just the few like me on top. That's the vision of America I’ve been consistently writing about for 55 years now.”

“Hi, I'm Bruce Springsteen. Friends, fans, and the press have asked me who I'm supporting in this most important of elections.

And with full knowledge that my opinions are no more or less important than those of any of my fellow citizens, here's my answer: I'm supporting Kamala Harris for President and Tim Waltz for Vice President and opposing Donald Trump and JD Vance.

Here's why.

We are shortly coming upon one of the most consequential elections in our nation's history. Perhaps not since the Civil War has this great country felt as politically, spiritually, and emotionally divided as it does then at this moment.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The common values, the shared stories that make us a great and united nation are waiting to be rediscovered and retold once again.

Now that will take time, hard work, intelligence, faith and women and men with the national good, guiding their hearts.

America's the most powerful nation on earth. Not just because of her overwhelming military strength or economic power, but because of what she stands for, what she means, what she believes in: freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, the right to be and love who you want.

These are the things that make America great.

Donald Trump is the most dangerous candidate for President in my lifetime. His disdain for the sanctity of our constitution, the sanctity of democracy, the sanctity of the rule of law, and the sanctity of the peaceful transfer of power should disqualify him from the office of President ever again.

He doesn't understand the meaning of this country, its history or what it means to be deeply American.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are committed to a vision of this country that respects and includes everyone regardless of class, religion, race, your political point of view or sexual identity, and they want to grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just the few like me on top. That's the vision of America I’ve been consistently writing about for 55 years now.

Everybody sees things different, and I respect your choice as a fellow citizen, but like you, I've only got one vote, and it's one of the most precious possessions that I have.

That's why come November 5th, I'll be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.”

[th3-c0ll3ct3r]

Docm77 as well as MANY other have fallen face first into this media-related ragebait and I'm here to explain why you shouldn't be mad at Doc/be upset but not "wish ill things on your child" upset, which yes. I did see. Shame on you person. Shame.

Ahem.

So upon waking up in the UK/Europe, we didn't necessarily have the build up to the presidential election due to timezone conflictions, so for many people (myself include) 6am to 9am we woke up to Trumps victory speech on the trending tab. I'm not joking, that's how people going out and how I found out

There have been a mixed bag of reaction but Doc is getting hate for saying, and I quote "Lol... Really USA? This is what I wake up to?"

Alot of people say this was insensitive, and excuse my language and I don't mean to upset, it's because they're Americans and (again apologies) Americans have been socialised into to being quite emotional about politics and read into everything that happens regarding it. Which is something that the rest of the world kinda looks down on America for, because it makes you look like 'cultist' (this isn't my viewpoint however we do discuss this alot in certain class and this is how other people see you)

Doc's reaction is not trying being insensitive, because to literally anyone else it's a reaction of speechlessness and confusion. Which the majority of people saw it as.

Because we all woke up to that.

Doc isn't trying to be insensitive, but I do understand why people think he's being insensitive, his confusion and speechlessness is being written off as dismissive.

People are saying the word 'lol' is worth cursing at his family over

1. That's not tolerated here. Don't be sending threats or harassing him.

2. Lol, has cultural differences in meaning.

In the US countries, it means 'haha funny!' or it can be a dismissive reply (in text format)

But in other countries, lol, is also used as a 'your joking right?' or 'pretty funny joke'. An example being 'lol what?' (funny joke, but what does it mean)

Many people think the lol is dismissive but it's not. He, along with many other actually didn't believe Trump had won yet and learnt about it in the worst way possible

Secondily he made a comment about dealing with "another 4 years of insanity" which people also thought was rude.

But sadly, it's actually true to alot of people outside the US. We only see the "funny" or mildly annoying bits of your media (because of filters and blockers) and sadly, I'll admit we don't know the full picture other than the Americans insanity over politics

It's literally what your known for in the UK.

So the '4 years of insanity' is definitely an exaggeration but is definitely true in some way. We get the bud of all the "Americans drama" and it's mostly the insane stuff, heck that's how flordia man and ohio became memes. So it's not unrealistic for us to see the next year's as insanity because it is. Just very dramatised

Also quick point, people are saying that because of this he doesn't support the LGBTQIA+ and to that I say; Rendog + his entire fanbase respectfully

Now the big boy issue. Doc said he won't talk about politics and Palestine yet talked about politics now? Why?

Why didn't Doc talk about Palestine?

And for similar reasons as to why alot of other people didn't talk about it, including myself. Not out of fear or something. It's because of the scams.

Being "late" to new media is frustrating especially when it comes to supporting people, and genuinely by the time I heard about Palestine I saw the scams first.

Doc HAS a younger audience demographic, who are more likely to get scammed because they do look very realistic and they even have fake followers and everything.

Why not get one from a reliable source? Well what is a reliable source? Because if something goes wrong people will blame you because you endorsed them.

Why not go to charities? Sadly their are now currently many scummy charities that do take alot of the donation percentage. (including some gofundme pages)

So to address this, Doc just didn't address it. And YES he admittedly should have explained why, instead of leaving it up to people to infer because as we can see, some people took it the wrong way. And I can see how they took it the wrong way, he didn't communicate it very well.

But to me and many others, the intentions were clear and that's why their were no comments made. However I do believe he shouldn't have used the excuse about not wanting to talk about politics, because that does have consequences long-term. And that why I'm here today

And this brings me to my final point.

People are forcing opinions out of other people and when their opinions don't aline they get mad about it. So to avoid this people either refuse to comment or have their own methods of tackling it or simply blurt it out because of pressure.

A modern example of this would be Kim. K and her son (ik shocking). Her son talked about supporting Trump and she got mad about it, told him to take down the videos and allegedly made him sign a contract saying to never make a video about politics.

Kim. K is actively avoiding being pressured into speaking by not responding and keeping it in.

However, another example of this would be Vivziepop. Due to recent events regarding her shows being leaked and the recent elections that damaged the integrity of women's rights and healthcare, she broke down on twitter.

Letting some of her frustrations spill out. This was encouraged by people personal targeting her, and basically harassing her to the point of breaking down.

These same types of people are trying to do the same to people like Aismey, Doc and even Jimmy Solidaritygaming because of thier social media presence, and when they have a reaction but then change their opinion it's suddenly a "well you didn't say that before!"

So to be clear, the circumstances of Docm77 is brought upon by miscommunication and ragebaiting. Dont go and threaten his family, voice your concerns respectfully in this troubling time (even if you're frustrated, you should project that onto someone else)

IF YOU SEE ANYONE RAGEBAITING REPORT IT

And have a good night ya'll

[triviallytrue]

What do you think of Hamas or PIJ

I've saved this ask for like three months now because I think it's interesting, so here's an attempt at answering it.

I'm going to truncate this to being solely about Hamas - I don't have an independent opinion about the Palestinian Islamic Jihad that doesn't fall under their association with Hamas.

So to start with the obvious - Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist militant organization, which is not a tendency that I have a very high opinion of. At the same time, I believe in the right of Palestinians to live without Israel's boot on their neck, and they are more or less the only game in town for anyone who wants that - the PLO is horrifically corrupt and collaborationist, and no one else has stood up to become a leftist secular organization in favor of the Palestinians. I think a Palestinian state governed by Hamas would be preferable to the status quo, but that is less an endorsement of Hamas than an indictment of the status quo.

Beyond this background, it's worth taking a look at October 7th specifically, both as a world historic event and the most significant example of Hamas' strategy in its war against Israel.

I tend to evaluate this kind of action on two axes - the morality of the action and its effectiveness at accomplishing the overarching goal. Unsurprisingly, I think the decision by Hamas to target and kill Israeli civilians is wrong, and I find the justifications that have been put out about why this would ever be okay to be both unconvincing and disturbing.

I also don't believe there is an argument that Palestine is better off than it was on October 6th. I want to be very clear about this - I do not hold Hamas morally responsible for the devastation that has been unleashed on Gaza. That responsibility rests entirely on Israel. There is no "justification" for doing what they're doing. But I do believe that when we evaluate an organization's effectiveness at achieving their goals, we need to take a blind eye toward moral culpability and examine cause and effect, and I don't think it's controversial to say that Gaza would not be in ruins right now if not for Hamas' actions on October 7th.

So when I examine Hamas, I see an organization that has done heinous things, not in service to a greater good, but rather to the ultimate detriment of the people they are fighting for.

And normally I would end the post here, and that would be that, but I think there's more to say here. When I critique an organization, I like to offer some sort of alternative path, a way that I believe they could be better or smarter. And the problem I have with "condemning" Hamas the same way I would another organization is that I just don't see a path forward for them.

I think Hamas could resist violently or peacefully or not at all and none of it would matter. If Palestine one day is free, it will be because of internal changes in Israel politics (vanishingly unlikely), internal changes in US politics (very unlikely), or collective pressure from the rest of the world against both (somewhat unlikely). The Palestinian people have been denied a say in their own future by Israel, the US, and the rest of the world (in that order).

Even if Hamas doesn't attack on October 7th, Gaza is still a very unpleasant place to live, and the noose just keeps tightening. The US is flipping the Arab countries one by one, relationships with Israel are normalizing, and no one seems to care. The fate of the Palestinian people is in the hands of politicians that would snap their fingers and kill them all, if they thought they could get away with it.

In this situation, then, it is not so surprising that Hamas does things that are violent, immoral, or counterproductive. When you are out of productive levers to pull, you start grabbing at the other ones, just in the hope that something will change. So, yes, I "condemn" Hamas, whatever that means - I mourn the Israeli civilians they killed just as I mourn the 30x (40x? 50x?) as many killed by the IDF. But I don't really think of Hamas or October 7th as surprising. I think it is an entirely predictable result of Israeli policy in Gaza.

[astorytotellyourfriends]

The one thing that everyone seems to know about Eddie Munson is that when he's not out touring the world with his band, Corroded Coffin, he makes a point to be as invisible as possible in order to spend time at home with his family. Eddie, along with his wife Chrissy of seven years and their two young children, graciously invited Vogue into their Hollywood Hills home that's about as secluded as you can get while still having that coveted Los Angeles zip code.

Vogue: I have to admit, given what I've seen of Corroded Coffin on stage, I think I expected your home to reflect a bit more of that personality.

Eddie Munson: [laughs] You can thank Chrissy for that. She's the brains behind this whole operation, I just do what she tells me.

So there's no hidden dungeon in the basement?

Hate to burst your bubble, but nope. I've been trying to get a sacrificial altar for the backyard, but I haven't found one I liked yet.

Really?

[laughs] I'm kidding. But I had you going, right?

You really did. But that's what you've always done, right? Leaned into the mania of Satanic Panic and made it work for you?

Yeah, I guess so. I mean, people are gonna believe whatever they wanna believe anyway so I might as well give 'em what they want, right? Plus, [laughs] it's a hell of a lot of fun.

What's it like having that devil-worshipper stage persona with two young kids at home? Do either of your kids know what their dad does for a living?

Oh, yeah. They [redacted] love it. Wait, can I say [redacted]?

We can't print it, but you can say it.

[Redacted] yeah. Our little one doesn't really get the whole stage thing yet, but she sure looks cute in those big-ass headphones.

And your other daughter?

Oh, if she could be on stage with me every night, she would be. On our last tour, we had this gimmick where Gareth rigged a bunch of blood packs to his drums to explode during the encore and she thought it was the coolest [redacted] thing in the world. He even offered to let her do it when we were in rehearsals!

And did she?

Maybe.

From the look on your face, I'm guessing she did.

[laughs] Don't tell Chrissy.

Scout's honor. Until this article comes out, anyway.

[Redacted]. Is it too late to say off the record?

Way too late.

[Redacted]. Oh well. Worth it. She had the biggest [redacted] grin on her face when she was covered in fake blood, it was priceless.

Seems like you might be raising a mini version of yourself. Would you support your kids following in your footsteps and joining the music industry?

[Editor's note: At this point in the interview, the eldest Munson child came running out of the back door and pounced on her father, who took it in stride and continued answering questions as though he didn't have a six-year-old hanging over his shoulder.]

I mean, if that's what they wanna do, then hell yeah.

[gasps] Daddy said a bad word!

Daddy did not, Daddy said hell.

Mommy said hell's a bad word.

Mommy also said you were supposed to stay inside, didn't she?

Pip was crying. She misses you.

Do you need a moment?

[laughs] Believe me, if I took a moment for every time I wanted to be with my kids, I'd never get anything done.

Because you love us so much?

Exactly.

How much?

To the moon and back.

That's a lot!

Sure is, kiddo. Now shush and let the nice lady ask her questions.

Ooh, ask me! Ask me! I got lots of stories.

If you don't mind?

It's your funeral. [laughs] She'll talk your ear off if you let her.

What do you think about your dad being a rockstar?

[shrugs] It's okay.

Wow, thanks for the endorsement, kid. You heard it here first: being a rockstar is just okay.

Would you rather he had another job?

[shrugs] What other job?

I dunno. Playing music's the only thing I've ever been good at.

Nuh-uh! Daddy's good at lots of things.

Like what?

Telling stories. Playing with me. One time, he built me a big castle out of pillows and chairs and blankets and we played in it all day 'til Mommy said it was time for dinner. And then we all went to bed in it. Like camping!

Camping? When did you go camping?

Mommy let us sleep outside and said it was like camping. It was when you were gone. I don't like when you're gone. It makes Mommy sad. And then I'm sad. And Pip's sad. You're not going away again, are you?

No, baby. I'm staying right here with you.

Good. [to Vogue] Do you wanna see what Daddy brought home for me last time he went away?

I'd love to.

Okay!

[Editor's note: just as quickly as she came, Munson's daughter ran off to go fetch the present from inside the house.]

Do you need a minute?

Nah. It just… [sighs] never gets easier, you know? Hearing how much they miss me when I'm gone. I miss them all the [redacted] time.

I'm not surprised. Just from the last five minutes, I can see how much she adores you and I can't imagine what it's like to leave that behind, even when it's to go on a worldwide tour.

It's tough. I love my job, don't get me wrong. It's what's given us this house, all the [redacted] that the girls need, anything they could ever want, but… [shrugs] I dunno. Sometimes giving it all up doesn't sound half as hard as leaving them is. Maybe that's just me being ungrateful.

I don't think so. I think it means you're human. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, you know? Torn between two worlds.

[laughs] Now there's an idea for an album. The dichotomy of being a rockstar and a father.

I'd listen to it.

Hell, so would I.

(might continue this with a lil follow-up fic of chrissy and eddie reading the interview before it goes to print... thoughts? 👀)

[alexanderwales]

"His favorite movie is American Psycho, which is so on brand for him," snorted Quinn.

"Um," said Lucy. "I don't know what that means. You're saying it like it's a bad thing, but American Psycho is a critique of consumer culture, empty status symbols, and 80s excess and materialism."

"Well," said Quinn. "I mean, sure, yeah, fine, but it's also about a guy killing a bunch of women and a few men, and I don't think that all that other stuff is why he likes it." He folded his arms. "Like I just mean, American Psycho is like ... that's him."

"Okay, so you're doing that thing where you're acting like enjoying a piece of media that criticizes something means you're endorsing the thing it criticizes because it uses depictions of that thing. It's like saying that someone who loves 1984 must be in favor of totalitarianism." Lucy leaned forward. "The whole point of the movie is that Patrick Bateman is pathetic. He's not a cool antihero, he's a hollow shell of a human, riddled with anxiety about his place in a world that does not care about him or the other people like him. The movie is making fun of him, constantly. He's pretentious, insane, ridiculous."

"I mean, sure," said Quinn. "Right. The violence and degrading sexualization is meant to be disturbing. But that doesn't mean that everyone in the audience gets that, and it definitely doesn't mean that Ethan gets it. There's a thing that you can do when you're writing and directing a movie where you make the critique too subtle for people who need a brick to the face, and they end up embracing it, or where you don't believe in the critique enough and end up giving a mild endorsement to the thing you're supposedly criticizing, or worse, where you just use the veil of criticism to show a lot of transgressive and shocking things, which are the real point. And you can see that, right, where American Psycho is at least partly a base male fantasy of power, control, and wanton violence."

"I mean sure," said Lucy. "Except that American Psycho was written and directed by two women."

"Based on a novel written by a man," said Quinn.

"Sure, but I don't think that Bret Easton Ellis endorsed Bateman, he also thought that he was a pathetic character," said Lucy.

"I mean the point I'm trying to make is that an artist can't control the way their message impacts the audience," said Quinn. "And in many cases, the audience experience of the transgressive is rooted in that transgression, which is what draws them in, disconnected from any intended critique."

Lucy shook her head. "What were we talking about?"

"Ethan," said Quinn. "And how he's a dickhead."

"Right," said Lucy. "And he's one of the people that's going to die to a slasher tonight if we're not able to stop that from happening, except that the ripples through time of stopping any of this from happening might mean that I'm never born."

~~~~

Yes, that's right gentle reader, you've been reading Time Cut (2024) fanfic all along! There was this one line about American Psycho that bothered me, it's a movie that earned its 5/10 on IMDB.

[purplebass]

I tried to analyze the complicated relationship Holland has with Kell and Lila. Why Kell doesn't want to kill him, why Lila does. The parallels between them. The way Holland and Lila remind each other of their demons the same way Holland reminds of Kell of his. And more. I suck at summarizing, I'm sorry.

Read more if you want to hear me ramble about antari and their complex dynamic, research paper style? haha.

@thevagabondexpress this is the long reply to the post you tagged me on, btw lol

Kell only killed Holland in adsom bc he had to, and in acol Kell risks to die to save Holland when he's put as bait. That's because even if their relationship had always been strained, he didn't want to kill the only other antari (until then), because it would make him more of an outcast and alone. Kell's reasons to spare Holland until he is forced to get rid of him are selfish. It doesn't matter Holland did what he did, Kell would only stop him if he thought it couldn't be helped (which it's what he does in adsom when Holland is compelled).

Holland comes back in acol and Kell sort of sees that as a way for Holland to have another chance. He isn't condoning what he did, because it can't be erased. He is trying to see things from Holland's perspective: Kell thinks if the roles had been switched, he would've done the same things to survive. To some extent, Kell also believed that it was a worse punishment for Holland to atone for his sins for the rest of his life. That's a meaningful punishment, and one he himself has been subjected for the whole of agos by the king. Kell surely doesn't shy away from ending lives, if necessary, but it's something he'd rather not do.

Which, in turn, is something Lila endorses. Lila thinks that the ends justify the means. And when someone hurts her or the people she cares about, hurting those who hurt her is her way to feel satisfied. An eye for an eye. Lila kills for selfish reasons, because she relishes in the high she gets when she kills. Despite what one may think, Lila is capable of showing mercy and think rationally. She doesn't just kill anyone. Those who don't hurt her are spared (think of Stasion Elsor. She could have killed him, Alucard's warning not to do it notwithstanding).

Lila tries to get rid of Holland several times in acol, but when she locks herself in the cell with him, she leaves her weapons outside, which means that she didn't want to truly kill him. Or she bet on herself that she could've killed him with her bare hands and magic, who knows. What is certain is that she wanted to unleash her rage and guilt and grief over Barron's death. Her rage wasn't just pointed at Holland but also at herself.

Early on, Holland told Kell that it was Lila's fault that Barron had died. He just did what he had to do, and since Lila stayed there, she lead him to Barron and she is an accomplice in his death. And this Lila also thinks about and is reminded of by Holland, and it sits heavy on her heart and she blames herself. So that's why Lila wants to get rid of Holland quickly: that's her way to cope with her grief and she deludes herself that by killing Holland, she will feel better about her guilt too and that she'd avenge Barron (which she also knows won't make her feel better but that's her way to deal with loss).

Holland is the only one who, throughout the end of acol, has the guts to tell to Lila's face that her violence against him is useless and that she, like him, has killed people for sport and she is guilty. Holland forces her to face her demons and Lila doesn't know that she is also one of the demons from his past. One of the hundreds who've wanted to kill him in his London ever since he was a child.

Holland also believes in the end justifies the means, but in his case, not for his own good but for his London as a whole. For the greater good. This is also selfishness. To Holland, if the sacrifice of one can benefit the majority of the people in WL, it has to be done. If he has to die for WL to rise and shine, then so be it. It is worth it. He also doesn't kill if it isn't necessary, as he tells Vortalis in one of the flashbacks (in this, he is like Kell).

This is the opposite of what Lila believes. To Lila, if the single she cares about has to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, say, to save a city, (we know Kell would do this too), she doesn't give a damn if everyone else perishes. She would rather live in a world where only she and the ones she cares about exist, rather than live in a world where everyone she loves is dead. In fact, it is no wonder Holland takes the brunt of their battle against Osaron in the end, and Kell takes it a little too (because they are also foil characters and Kell often has a softer - but not necessarily sweeter - taste of what Holland goes/went through).

Which leads to the last point. I talked about Kell's compassion towards Holland, and Lila's mercy towards those who didn't directly hurt her and her loved ones. Holland shows mercy not just to Kell (who actually killed him in adsom and took away his chance to kill the Dane twins, which is something Holland is still angry about) but also towards Lila when she is hurt in Rosenal. She is the character that among the group is the most undeserving of his sympathy: had the roles been switched, would Lila have showed the same mercy to Holland? I am not sure. Part of me thinks Holland saved Lila so the reader would see he is kind despite it all (just like Kell is) also because of Kell himself. The people Holland loved all died and he couldn't save them. Holland doesn't love Lila, but Kell does, and Holland sees himself in Kell. Kell is what he would have been had he not being born in WL. He doesn't want Kell to suffer the same fate he did. In a way, this is both mercy and love.

[girlcrushart]

I was admittedly disappointed when Chappell decided not to endorse Kamala. And a lot of people are, and they're being vocal and honestly nasty about it. I do think it's of paramount importance that she win, because if the other guy gets in, then a lot of the things Chappell is passionate about (from drag to basic human rights for the LGBTQ+ community) are in serious jeopardy. And, as a Canadian, who can't vote in this election, but who's life will unquestionably be effected by who becomes the next President, I get upset when people don't take the right they've been given seriously. That's where the hate that Chappell has received is confusing and obnoxious, because even tho her motivations are really obvious to me, people really seem to have missed the boat on this one. Right away, people accused her of "both-siding" it, when she said that there are bad people on both sides. That's not both-siding it, you guys. That's when you say there are very fine people on both sides and one side is Nazis. That's not what she was saying. Honestly, there ARE bad people on both sides. People also accused her of doing it because she didn't want to lose fans, or upset her family or whatever... those people are also confused. You really think Chappell has a lot of red-hat-wearing fans? You really think she cares at all about that? She had to clarify today that she is not voting for Trump, and while she didn't say who she was voting for she def kinda implied that she's basically not happy with either choice for some real reasons. Chappell has made it very clear in the past that she is unhappy with her government's position and involvement on what's happening in Gaza and that they are complicit in aiding and supporting a genocide. That's what she means by bad people. Genocide is bad, you guys. She doesn't want to enthusiastically support and endorse people who, while they may fight for things that are important to her that she believes in, are also contributing to something she believes to be inexcusable. And I think she's brave for sticking to that. For me, personally, I'd prefer it if she endorsed Kamala and helped ensure she ends up in charge—that would be best for me. But Chappell has already made it very clear that she's not gonna just do things because other people expect her to because she's a celebrity and there are unwritten rules that need to be followed. She's challenging so many of those rules (and I applaud and love her for it), and in this case, for her personally, she didn't feel like she could officially endorse anyone and she has perfectly reasonable reasons for doing that. I'm sad, I wish she'd do otherwise, but my admiration for her has only increased because she's clearly a deep thinker who does not make decisions lightly and is sticking to her values and beliefs. Today's girlcrushart guardian is Chappell Roan.

[idiotic-b-gilson]

The Prank Theory: Or, Why Toby won't make an explicit announcement that Kris' pronouns are they/them despite that obviously being canon.

Disclaimer: people who use they/them for Kris are NOT the butt of the joke here. Although calling it a prank might be a little misleading to begin with, you'll see why.

I know for a fact, judging from my dashboard, that I am not alone in being mad at people misgendering the humans of Undertale and Deltarune (although, I will admit I used to be part of the problem up until quite recently). And we all wish for Toby to just go out and publicly announce that Kris, Frisk, and Chara use they/them only, that Mad Mew Mew is canonically transfem, etc., just to stop all the misgendering. It would certainly be nice and very helpful for the LGBTQ community. However, after giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that it most likely cannot happen, and the reason why is the Prank Theory. Treat it as an explanation, but not an excuse.

I came up with Prank Theory over something that's completely unrelated to the above, funnily enough. You see, I have this headcanon that Asriel Dreemurr is not cisgender. I'm not entirely sure what his gender is, but he's not cis male for sure. And I've seen a variety of different takes on this concept. For example, AUs like (Ask) Fallen Royalty by @starlightshore present Asriel as having transitioned in a more feminine direction ((A)FR specifically describes her gender as feminine nonbinary). Others still write Asriel (chiefly the Deltarune one) as transgender male (I've mostly seen that take in NSFW fanfics on AO3, which is a shame cuz it has great potential beyond that. Please tell me where I can find more). Other others still, like my beloved mutual @sukifoof, have proposed that Asriel might be agender. And, let me be clear about something: those are all great ideas, and I love them. But I started to wonder, which of these ideas is the closest to canon? Like, if we also factor in authorial intent, which of these options would fit under it, and which ones wouldn't? That was when I came up with Prank Theory, as a way to kind of imagine at least one aspect of said authorial intent.

Spoiler alert, according to Prank Theory any kind of transfeminine Asriel is incompatible with canon, but again I want to make it clear that that doesn't mean I think they're "wrong" or "bad" or anything like that, and I want to reiterate my endorsement of writing Asriel this way. Besides, my theory could be completely wrong, so...

So, after all that stuff, what does the Prank Theory actually say? Well, in summary: Undertale and Deltarune are some of the most "woke" video games ever made, but conservatives and reactionaries don't seem to have realized that yet, funnily enough. Now, calling it a prank is a wee bit misleading, since it implies that tricking right-wingers into loving a video game with a very progressive setting and message was at least part of what Toby intended. And I don't believe that's the case. He simply makes video games he wants to make, and they just happen to reflect his views on the world, and these views just happen to fly over the heads of some people.

This in and of itself would probably not make it a huge problem for Toby to put in one of his newsletters, or even in an X (as in, former Twitter) post, a correction regarding the genders of his characters. However it does start to become a problem when you factor in that the UTDR community has hundreds of thousands of people in it (although as of the March 2024 it might be a rather liberal estimate), and many of them would be quite pissed off if the video game they like had "suddenly" "gone woke" (ignorant of the fact that both it, and its main creator have been openly "woke" the whole time). And that is a problem in the current environment, because it means that Toby, as well as other people on the UTDR dev team, would be at a significant risk of hate and harassment, which in the Year of Our Lord 2024 could lead to Angel knows what.

On a more cynical capitalist (and much more speculative) level, attracting political controversy this way could sour Toby's relationship with big video game companies which have (as far as I know) played an important part in why Toby's got basically unlimited resources to work on the game of his fever dreams. They saw the widespread, universal acclaim that UT, DR1 and DR2 received, and drew the conclusion that DR3-4 (and the future chapters) will also get a similar reception, and they will get great returns no matter how much money they pour into it. This belief could be shaken if Toby attracted the ire of his transphobic fans by correcting their misgendering of his characters, and thus limiting the reach Chapters 3 and 4 would otherwise have (but again, this is pure speculation, I'm not an economist, nor do I know how much companies like Nintendo have actually invested in Deltarune. So I could be, like, way off).

And that is, in the end, why I believe Toby Fox will not make a statement regarding the canon gender of any UTDR character, at least not while Deltarune is still in development. After it's finished I think he might feel free enough to take that step. But we'll have to see.

Now, I don't know if I'm right. I feel pretty confident in my own theory, but there's a good chance I missed something. So, if I did, please lemme know. In the meantime, let's hope Toby will disprove my theory soon and set things right. And I'll see you around.

[neechees]

about the whole preoccupation w incest thing amongst white people on the internet i haven't really noticed it? i am white and find it intriguing (i was incestually abused as a child and so i find it interesting how it develops in families, how people respond to it, etc (it's kind of been part of my healing process)) but i don't really see anyone being obsessed w it? maybe pointing out themes of it in media but that's kinda it? some of my mutuals, idk if they're white, but they have also been abused the same way i have and find discussing it or finding media with incest in it to be a part of exposure therapy/dealing with the trauma. id love to hear your thoughts on it :)

I've talked about this a few times in the past, but I'm posting again to make my views & boundaries known that 1. Dni if you're a "pr0shipper" & enjoy shipping incest, I do not want you here, 2. Fiction does not exist in a vacuum. Im going with the assumption that anon is not a proshitter & they're asking this in good faith. Just putting a readmore because this got long and also for anyone who is triggered by this topic

The conversation I think is surrounding proshitters ("shippers"), but I think the conversation also goes deeper into things like "incest" & "step family" being popular porn site searches that very often feature white actors, as well as those things showing up in film, book, and TV, but in romantisize/sexualized/downplayed ways written by and featuring, again, white people. So I believe generally the "obsession" part means White people who are overly preoccupied with seeing incest quite often, especially and specifically in sexualized, fetishized, and/or romantisized ways. Because personally (& I believe other nonwhite people can attest to this as well, and that's what the other posts mean to say) a lot of the people who have this overkeen interest in incest are White.

Like it's not talking about people wanting to have nuanced depictions of incest, why it's bad, how that affects people & can be extremely traumatizing, and then approaching that topic respectfully (because it should be, that's a terrible thing and showing respect for victims of it & ensuring its not, accidentally or not, endorsed or shown as "okay" or normalizing it, is important. Execution as well as intent are important & should be done with tact.) The people who are mentioned as being "obsessed with incest" as these pr0shippers who find incest "sexy", want to see it, actively search it out where it is both romantisized/sexualized/fetishized, and will apply it in fanon interpretations even when it doesn't exist in canon or this interpretation wouldn't/doesn't make sense anyway, specifically because they enjoy seeing it. They find it titillating. Quite a few of the popular users on this site who have famously defended incest (and/or pedophilia) both in real life AND as proshitters have been... White. And racist.

I think there IS a correlation between White people, proshitters (who are usually people who defend romantisized depictions of things like incest), and liking incest, because I very often seen proshitters be racist (and other types of bigoted tbh), and ALSO defend things like racist depictions of nonwhite characters, things like slavery AU's featuring Black characters, or colonizer AU's, and the like. It's a common joke (not so much of a joke tho tbh) that the more White people that exist prominently in a fandom, then the less fun it is, specifically because of racism that will then exist in that fandom. So there's this huge overlap of White fans being racist but ALSO there being a lot of fans who enjoy seeing incest in their fave medias, because of the proshitters, who do both. There was also that whole thing where a bunch of popular white users on here (many of whom ALSO defended incest) defended sexual raceplay & then called any nonwhite person (ESPECIALLY BLACK USERS) "homophobic" or "transphobic" for rightfully and correctly calling this racist.

Lots of White people like to do this thing where, if they are marginalized in some way, then they'll weaponize that marginalization against anyone who criticizes them for something (most often racism), even if their marginalized identity has nothing to do with the topic or was brought up. White women who happened to be gay called me "homophobic" and "misogynist" (even though I'm a bi woman but you know) because I talked about the nazi associations & racist inclinations of cottage core. I saw multiple White lotr fans call a specific artist "homophobic" because that artist asked that their art not be tagged as an incest ship, and that incest ship is very popular (and their art piece was depicting them as just family), but this incest ship isn't even canon, and the artist wasn't actually homophobic or against gay relationships in general. So they essentially just called this artist "homophobic" for no reason. Because they didn't want their art piece of two family members to be incorrectly interpreted as incestuous. Im even reluctant to draw fan art of some of my favorite characters who are family members, because I dont want people who ship incest to interact with it or tag it as that, and the fact that so many artists even have to ask people NOT to do this is insane.

Like it's one thing if someone analyzes media with it or might find comfort in certain characters in books or TV etc because they feel seen in their trauma, and yet can acknowledge that this isn't for everybody and not everyone processes their trauma this way, and that seeing it (incest in media) can make trauma WORSE for many people, AND that not all representations are made equally, and none of those are free from being available to criticism in approach of that representation anyway. But very often there's White fans (many who aren't even incest victims themselves, so they don't have the "I'm coping" excuse) that are offended that other people don't like seeing incest at ALL, that people will (understandably) not want to interact with them if they're a pr*shipper, and hate being reminded that treating incest like its a fun little interest that shouldn't be handled with care just because it's being featured in a fictional situation (or even sometimes when it's NOT) is pretty fucked up and even disrespectful & insensitive to incest survivors, and then chalk up any criticism of the amount of sexualized/romanticized incest as "censorship" even though that's not what's happening, and again, very often self victimize themselves and often are also racist.

[rainbowdaisy13]

Beautiful, wear some more merch Taylor. How does she this and doesn't cancel that fucking pap walk? Have a spine. And I'm supposed to be impressed she endorsed Kamala? Nvm that Karlie is actually fighting this in her homestate. But with how poorly she's being treated by Taylor, maybe this makes Taylor giddy. It's just another thing to fuck with her. She can't repost the Getaway Coalition, Karlie's efforts to stop this in Missouri, but she sure as fuck is proud to be seen with these other people. That's a choice she makes over and over again. Each time I think my opinion of Taylor can't drop any lower, she proves me wrong. The things she does for money and fame are so fucked. I can't believe I've ever spent a dime on this phony ass person.

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/11/missouri-abortion-amendment-opposition-hunt-chiefs/

This is what many of us are saying—making one IG post saying she’s voting for Kamala doesn’t mean shit if she’s actively working with people who are trying to take away women’s rights

It’s a fucking joke, she’s a joke

Karlie working to get signatures FOR this amendment simultaneously is so wild

“Abortion is illegal from the moment of conception in Missouri, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies. There are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.”