#this isn't a gotcha i'm genuinely curious

[ironmyrmidon]

Hey Star Wars fans, can I get a vibe check from y'all? Is galactic society in Star Wars like, a little space racist? Obviously the bad guys are like super space racist, but I get the vibe that there's a bunch of little space racist assumptions in Star Wars society.

Like, whenever we see a character who we're supposed to perceive as a sexually forward and attractive women it's basically always a Twilek? I don't think I've ever seen a Mon Calamari character who isn't involved in shipping in some way. You never see an Ugnaught in a boardroom meeting.

So like, are we supposed to view Star Wars as a universe where your race/species is a super important part of your place in society? Do Twilek women complain to each other about how they're not taken seriously by their male colleagues? Do the Mon Calamari just accept that they're stuck in shipping forever? Do Ugnaughts resent society for not giving them opportunities to succeed?

Or are we supposed to understand that the Star Wars universe is much more equitable than what we're shown, and tropes like the "sexy Twilek babe" or "Mon Calamari pilot" are just a non-diagetic shorthand the authors use to communicate galactic society to people who don't live in that galaxy?

[ask-artsy-oncie]

Y'know something I'd like to try and see is how the anti-AO3, "don't pay them money if we can't make money off our fics" crowd feels about the rising use of sweatshop labor to produce bootlegs for fan artist merch. Legality aside, if the motivation is that fan artists deserve to be able to make money, what are the boundaries of their morality in the effort preserve that ability?

Of course, wording it the way I do makes it seem rather obvious, but it's become so normalized at this point I don't think people even consider where a lot of fan artist merch comes from anymore. Because like at least 70% of the time it isn't artists anymore.

[apas-95]

would an american moving to a socialist country be more moral than staying in america? this isn't like a gotcha i'm just genuinely curious

While questions about morality are, in essence, immaterial, morality exists downstream of politics, so I'll answer this question as regards to political efficacy -

It is most effective for communists to engage in revolution in their homeland, where they have the greatest roots among the people and the greatest knowledge of local conditions. Additionally, while international solidarity is generally well-recieved, revolutions must be self-directed affairs - if one has any intent of seeing their homeland socialist, they must take part in bringing it about themself. You can't taste a peach without biting it!

That being said - as regards to someone who is not, nor intends to be, a professional revolutionary, this doesn't matter. Live where you want, the lifestyle of an individual is no political matter on its own.

[milf--adjacent]

hiii

first off, this isn't an attempt at a "gotcha" or a way to insult you or anything, just genuinely curious. i was wondering who you were planning on voting for come November? you've talked so much about who you don't support, so I was just curious who you do support. thank you for your time!!

Haven't decided yet. I think we have at least one more free and open debate before November. The candidates I'm weighing are:

Also check out the green party's candidates for down-ballot options in your area. There are a lot of greens running:

[txttletale]

genuine question: how do you reconcile police abolition with marxism-leninism? isn't having police a notable feature of marxist leninist regimes? this isn't a gotcha I'm just curious about how you reconcile this or what flaws exist in my conception of marxism-leninism

so there's an obvious theoretical answer to this, a more in-depth theoretical answer to this, and a practical answer that derives from the latter. the obvious theoretical answer is that my police abolitionist stance is based on the role of the bourgeois police force as enforcers of private property law--as the front line of class warfare against the working class. there is a material difference in the incentives and structures of a socialist police force operating on behalf of the working class as an organ of class warfare against the bourgeoisie.

but this isn't a complete and satisfying answer. i mean, obviously. the idea that the soviet militsiya and nkvd were in any way worse than the tsarist police and secret poice that came before them--or, for that matter, meaningfully worse than contemporary capitalist police forces, or the capitalist police forces in the post-soviet bourgeois states--is an anticommunist fabrication. but the idea that the militsiya was without its problems, that ordinary citizens did not have to worry about effectively unaccountable brutality in their interactions with these bodies, is also pretty detached from material reality. i think we can safely establish that the existence of a proletarian state alone isn't enough to solve the problems of a police force.

so what's the more complex theoretical approach? well, in a little number called state & revolution, v.i. lenin talks about 'special bodies of armed men' as opposed to 'self-acting armed organisations'--essentially drawing the conclusion that the former (police & military) were essentially removed from accountability--by virtue of their unique position and special privileges afforded to them by their uniforms, they're able to act as if and consider themselves as external to society, and so they're invariably doomed to be detached from the working class even if they are operating in their ostensible interest. meanwhile, the 'self-acting armed organization' is more like a militia, in the traditional sense of being fundamentally made up of ordinary people. this was why the militsiya was named that, because although it did ultimately develop into a 'special body of armed men' it began life as a revolutionary milita.

& i want to be clear that the importance of the self-acting armed organization is not an embrace of 'community justice' or whatever thinly veiled mob justice in a nice hat that anarchists like to sing the praises of. these militias should still be organized and structured, so that they can be accountable. but the importance of them being self-acting organizations instead of special bodies of armed men is that they are not removed from society. lenin discussed at length the example of the paris commune, and how civil servants within the commune were paid exactly the same as anyone else--and discussed how the advancement of both technology and education could create a world in which any citizen could (and therefore, indeed, would) take up a role in the administration of their society.

i think it therefore follows from what lenin wrote that the theoretical model of policing as self-acting armed organizations should result in a socialist state in which nobody is professionally, as a career, a 'police officer'. the work that constitutes 'policing' in a post-revolutionary society should be simple enough that anybody can and does do it--not on pure self-initiative but in a mobilized and organized fashion. this prevents the elevation of police to a body 'above society' and therefore capable of and even inclined to performi mass violence against that society.

and of course, the eternal question for marxists, what does this look like in practice: i think there have been succesful and interesting experiments in this sort of thing in socialist projects across the globe. most notably, i think that the cuban committees for the defense of the revolution are a good place to start, & so are mao's eight points of attention and three rules of discipline & the processes (not always succesful) to create accountability to the masses among the red guards and red army during and after the chinese civil war.

& of course, once there are no more classes, there will be no need for a state, or an apparatus to suppress the bourgeoisie more generally, and so the police will wither away with the rest of it.

[thelaurenshippen]

this is a genuine question not at all meant as a rude gotcha, but I feel like I've seen lots of people cite the relatively low barrier of entry as a huge advantage of podcasts as a medium, "if you have access to decent audio tech you can make a podcast" etc etc. So where does the need to sell a script come in? Is it a financial thing, and IP thing, something else?

this doesn't read like a rude gotcha at all, it's a really good question! there is a much lower barrier to entry when it comes to podcasts compared to tv, film, theater, etc. (though not as low as writing a book if we're talking about hard resources - you can technically write a book with just a laptop and a dream and then self publish! though as a writer who has written a lot of scripts and four books (3 published) writing a book is a much bigger psychological burden imo lol).

the need to sell a script, for me, is entirely a financial thing. if I had the money to produce podcasts at the level I want to entirely independently, I would! I know how to do it! but, unfortunately, I really only have the funds to produce something like @breakerwhiskey - a single narrator daily podcast that I make entirely on my own.

and that show is actually a great example of just how low the barrier is: I actually record the whole thing on a CB radio I got off of ebay for 30 bucks, my editing software is $50/month (I do a lot of editing, so this is an expense that isn't just for that show) and there are no hosting costs for it. the only thing it truly costs me is time and effort.

not every show I want to make is single narrator. a lot of the shows I've made involve large casts, full sound design, other writers, studio recording, scoring, and sometimes full cast albums (my first show, The Bright Sessions had all of those). I've worked on shows that have had budgets of 100 dollars and worked on shows that cost nearly half a million dollars. if anyone is curious about the nitty gritty of budgets, I made a huge amount of public, free resources about making audio drama earlier this year that has example budgets in these ranges!

back in the beginning of my career, I asked actors to work for free or sound designers to work for a tiny fee, because I was doing it all for free and we were all starting out. I don't like doing that anymore. so even if I'm making a show with only a few actors and a single sound designer...well, if you want an experienced sound designer and to pay everyone fairly (which I do!), it's going to cost you at least a few thousand dollars. when you're already writing something for free, it can be hard to justify spending that kind of money. I've sound designed in the past - and will be doing so again in the near future for another indie show of mine - but I'm not very good at it. that's usually the biggest expense that I want to have covered by an outside budget.

but if I'm being really honest, I want to be paid to write! while I do a lot of things - direct, produce, act, consult, etc. - writing is my main love and I want it to be the majority of my income. I'm really fortunate to be a full-time creative and I still do a lot of work independently for no money, but when I have a show that would be too expensive to produce on my own, ideally I want someone else footing the bill and paying me to write the scripts.

I love that audio fiction has the low barrier to entry it does, because I think hobbyists are incredible - it is a beautiful and generous thing to provide your labor freely to something creative and then share it with the world - but the barrier to being a professional audio drama writer is certainly higher. I'm very lucky to already be there, but, as every creative will tell you, even after you've had several successes and established yourself in the field, it can still be hard to make a living!

anyway, I hope this answers your question! I love talking about this stuff, so if anyone else is curious about this kind of thing, please ask away.

[zain-syscourse]

i might have asked this before here or on one of my other blogs, i honestly forgot, but is anyone who's anti-psych willing to answer a few questions for me?

i've seen the anti-psych label floating around, and i've tried to ask a few people who use it what it means to them since i'm not familiar with the ideaology, but i've gotten primarily hostility or no response.

my biggest question is simply... what does being anti-psych mean to you? how does it interact with people who are reliant on their mental health professionals, medications, in-patient facilities, ect? this isn't meant as a "gotcha" or anything, i'm genuinely curious.

[carriesthewind]

a question, if you don't mind it! I read your post about the IA, and it makes a lot of sense, I wasn't aware of how their lending system operated, so thank you for that. I was curious, does there exist/do you know of any digital library that operates fairly and without harming authors? lending on a one to one basis etc? this isn't an "aha, there is not ethical option available to me so I'm allowed to steal, gotcha!", I just genuinely hope something like that exists bc for several reasons I don't have access to a physical library rn. thanks and I hope this isn't a bother <3

Hi Anon!

Unfortunately, I think the answer to what you are looking for is going to boil down to "there are a lot of free online books and resources, but not resources that will allow you to borrow any given book." But it's going to be a little bit of a complicated path to get there.

Part of the problem is the words "fairly" and "without harming authors." Because "fair" does not necessarily equal "legal," and authors can and do disagree about what systems cause them harm. So is "controlled digital lending"(CDL) (where instead of buying or licensing an e-book, the lender digitizes print book and lends the digital copy) that's one-to-one owned-to-loaned fair and not harm authors? Well, as the district court held, it's certainly not legal in the U.S. (because to be clear: while the IA was/is not doing one-to-one owned-to-loaned, the holding of the court was that even it it was, that would violate U.S. copyright law). But is it fair (or more fair and equitable than current digital copyright law) and does it harm authors? As I've said in a previous post, I have not stated and will not state a personal opinion on that. If you want to read more, the statement I previously linked by the National Writer's Union takes a position that it is unfair and harms authors; for a counter-position that it is fair and does not harm authors, here's the memorandum the EFF filed in support of their motion for summary judgement for the IA. And you can find lots and lots more written on both sides of the issue. (If you are struggling with where to start: a google search for "internet archive controlled digital lending" will bring up a lot of articles about the case with links to various statements and opinions.)

If you are looking to avoid illegal or disputed CDL, there are options, but they are limited: that is, there is plenty of digital books and reading material that is legally and fairly available online, but you are unlikely to be able to borrow any specific book. Some options that exist:

On the IA's "Open Library": anything in the public domain (including, as of 2023, anything published or released in the U.S. prior to 1928), as well as anything where the rights-holder has allowed the IA to distribute their work. (If legality matters less to to you "fair" and "harms authors," you might also be ok with works on IA if the author has permitted the IA or another site to loan their work in defiance of an allegedly unfair or exploitative contract.)

If you want to avoid the IA's "Open Library," HathiTrust Digital Library won their copyright case (correctly, imo) and host a bunch (17+ million) of digital books and other items. (By the way: this was a case where the IA - as one of their partner organizations - was on the right side and the Authors Guild, who sued them, was, imo, on the wrong side. Just to emphasize how complicated this is.) But (unless you are a member of one of their partner institutions - mostly universities) your access is limited to reading works that are in the public domain or for which they have been given permission from the copyright holder.

Lots of individuals and organizations post written material for free online! For example, while many journal articles are hidden behind paywalls, many are not; lots of short story magazines (esp. genre fic) have free digital versions; and lots of people post books for free online under a Creative Commons License. I don't know of any universal library for these kinds things though - where to look will depend on what you are looking for.

Beyond that, it depends on where you are and what you are looking for. For example, if you aren't in the U.S., there may be country-specific digital resources (e.g. does your country have a national library, and does it have digital resources)?

You can try looking into:

Local university or resource centers: sometimes, even if you aren't a student or profession, many of these institutions offer resources, including digital resources, to their local communities.

Local museums: same as above.

Local cultural or other kinds of resource centers: sometimes these kinds of organizations will have community libraries. These will often be specific to the interest of the organization in question, but it's worth checking!

Finally, if you are in the U.S.: if your lack of access to a physical library is based on the fact that you can't physically get to or access the library, but you do have a local library, you have options! Even if you can't get there to access a library card, some libraries will allow you to create a card online just for their digital collection. And many libraries have resources to assist home-bound patrons - it's always worth calling and asking.

If anyone else has any other suggestions, please feel free to add them! (Especially if you have information on non-U.S. and/or non-english specific resources)

[the-perfect-wagnerite-again]

Can you please explain what stuff like "safe horny" is? What do you consider to be "healthy," if you can describe the subject as such, sexuality? I'm not trying to make a gotcha or own, I genuinely am curious as to what that means.

My take on healthy sexuality is deeply influenced by my Kantianism. We humans are unique in that we are simultaneously phenomenal objects and free subjects, and the categorical imperative impels us to treat all subjects as ends in themselves. Sexual desire is an immensely complex phenomenon, and at its core is the base animal instinct for copulation and sexual satisfaction. But the mere slaking of lust is beneath us; it doesn't satisfy, because we are more than just flesh.

Over and above sexual lust is sexual desire, a metaphysical search for the subjecthood of the Other that we sense in our beloved. We know that our subjectivity is the vector through which experience is possible, and so we exist not so much IN the world as on its edge, looking out from the first-person perspective, the state that allows us to utter the word "I" and have it mean something. In the beloved is a recognition of the self reflected back, a not-self in full possession of that same subjectivity, and it is the total knowledge of this alien subjecthood that sexual desire seeks to possess. Why do we get lost in the eyes of our beloved? We don't see the eye as an organ of sight, but as a window to the self. In the eyes, we see a self-possessed "I" looking back at us, which is why the gaze from the beloved has been such a powerful anchor for artists, poets, and musicians throughout the ages. This singular drive for knowledge of the subject is also why it would be insane to suggest to a man in love to trade his wife for a newer or more attractive one. The man in love isn't interested in women writ large, no matter how attractive they might be: his desire is concentrated and focused upon a singular, solitary subject for whom he seeks total knowledge.

In light of this, marriage is now understood as a redemption of the human biological drive for sexual satisfaction. In much the same way we redeem our biological need for nutrition through the cultural apparatus of cooking, meal-taking, and communion, through romance, courtship, and marriage we take the base human drive for sexual possession and uplift it to its apex as pure subjectivity.

What happens when we decouple this connection between the subject and sexual desire? What happens when we shift our understanding of sex as an exercise of epistemology to a mere conjugation of body parts? The relation falls away from that of "I to I" and becomes an "it to it" relation, objects colliding in a world of objects. The true danger of pornography, the sexual revolution, and modern sexual ethics is that they obliterate the subject in the sexual act, and reduce them to the status of object, a body with sexual organs that can be manipulated in the act of intercourse. In this new paradigm, there is no motivation for knowledge of the other, there is only self-satisfaction. The beloved vanishes and in its stead are objects to be consumed through dating apps, pornography, advertising, and menu-mentality approaches to romance as a "marketplace." The only barrier is consent, so any moral castigations beyond that are seen as backwards, oppressive, and reactionary.

Where consent is the only necessary factor for any sexual encounter of any kind or in any circumstance, male sexuality becomes unshackled from the duties and obligations that previously bound it into healthy service to femininity and family. It is once again predatory, as it would be in a state of nature, because we've cast aside our redeeming institutions of romance and courtship as regressive relics of a patriarchal past. "Safe horny" is a refuge for men to express desire without being seen as predatory, which is why we've seen such a dramatic increase in men expressing desires for dominant women and aggressive matriarchal sexual archetypes, in which relation they couldn't possibly be seen as agents themselves. This is a symptom of the larger sexual dysfunction of modernity.

[pcktknife]

this isn't like a gotcha or anything I'm just curious are u aware the mansquito/big frog blood post was Abt monster hunter? Bc the op did actual say that but genuinely I'm curious how many ppl are aware of it. Also it makes perfect sense. Your body doesn't enjoy giving large frogs your blood we all know this

i didnt at all 😌🙏🏾

[lookinghalfacorpse]

On one of your older fics there's a tag that's like "if you interpret my doomsday trio as romantic i'll kill you myself" and I'm really curious about how you went from that to shipping them. This ask isn't meant to be like a "gotcha!! you're a hypocrite!!" type thing, I'm genuinely really curious about how you view shipping + your own writing process. is it that you'd prefer doomsday trio to only read as platonic in that one fic? if so, why?

thanks for pointing it out, i thought i deleted all the tags like that. i went back & deleted it as well. it was on prisoner symptoms, but there were some on my other early fics as well, like one-two-three.

if i'm being honest, i saw a lot of people get hate for shipping (esp with techno's character) and i was very nervous. i write a lot of intimate scenes, and at the time i did intend them to be platonic. mostly because i thought i'd be crucified if i thought otherwise. i was just pretty new to the fandom at the time and i thought that was just What The People Here Did.

[yokelfelonking]

Physics / astrophysics side of tumblr, maybe you can help me with a question that popped into my head recently...

So, as I understand it, the greater the mass of an object, the greater its gravity, until you eventually reach a point where its gravity becomes completely inescapable and it becomes a black hole.

If this is the case, how was the Big Bang possible, since the initial singularity had all the mass in existence and thus would have completely inescapable gravity?

This isn't a bad faith question or meant to be a "gotcha, the big bang is bullshit!" or anything; I'm genuinely curious if there's ideas behind it or if it's still one of the questions floating around in the scientific community.

[hamliet]

very random ask, but if you have any thoughts, I'm curious to know: I remember for the AOT final chap you made some comments comparing Eren's "tantrum" to incels- how it can come from a real place of hurt, which doesn't make the impact any less harmful. I was curious if you've ever stumbled on incel content (not like Andrew Tate, just dudes with a webcam). Do you ever feel a desire to engage with them? Try to somehow help them even when you're so angry? I can't help but want to, even if futile.

For Eren, I more made the comparison to toxic Reddit dudebros, some of whom are like that, but not all.

No, I don't really seek it out because it would just enrage me, and there are better things to do with my time and with anger lol. I don't think it would be particularly helpful for me.

That said, I think that they're human beings who are feeling exceedingly alienated and lonely, desperate and scared, and project that blame onto someone else (women). And, they are entitled about it and instead of taking responsibility and doing what they can, they give up and complain because it's easier than actually trying to better themselves and the hellscape we live in. Even if it is futile. And part of it is surely the anger about privilege being called out and the entitlement that comes with that, but part of it is also genuine loneliness and confusion.

I dunno. I've seen other people engage, and engage positively too (like ContraPoints on YouTube, for example). And that's great, because someone has to to not write those people off as subhuman, because that only breeds further radicalization. People can't change without relationship, and they can't change without hope. I can intellectually empathize with where they're coming from, but I'm not sure I would personally be able to make any sort of connection without ending up dropkicking them into a wall lol.

Like, Idk, you only have to log on to reddit to see a lot of widespread misogyny incel-talking points there, like the zillions of fake paternity fraud posts or how men don't understand nor participate in empathizing with what it's like to be the pregnant person in a relationship (you do not in fact have equal say, nor do 99% of them even understand the most basic pregnancy facts like how it's calculated--hint it isn't date of conception) or who leave their partners when they get sick. (The latter one is personal for me, too; I had a boyfriend who withdrew and "couldn't deal with it" when I was told I might have lymphoma; I did not end up having it, but either way, that was basically the end right there.)

I do think incels and other radicalized groups of people can change. I know they can, because I grew up in a fundie cult and left. And that won't happen if the entire world just cuts them off, but that also doesn't mean anyone is obligated to reach out, if that makes sense. But for me, this particular group incenses me because of particular triggers and experiences I have. I'm more likely to reach out to the fundamentalist religious types because I can, well, understand a bit more.

What's needed to reach out to people in any sort of extremist place is seeing them as human beings, honestly. You'd be surprised at how far that simple idea--treating someone like a person more than just their stupid, toxic, evil beliefs--goes. Which does mean reaching out to them with more than just "I want to change your mind" because that treats people like a project and people don't tend to like that lol. But reaching out and wanting to hear their stories and listen, not for a "gotcha" moment but out of "hey, you're a person" is fair. And not everyone can reach out to everyone, and that's also fair. But also be aware of groupthink and how it functions for your own sanity and safety, too.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

do you still genuinely believe jikook are dating even after you said you had to re-evaluate your opinions/thoughts about their relationship after the video of (seemingly) jungkook in his apartment with the woman?

i'm asking this in good faith and honestly curiosity, because i saw your reblog about the key thing and it's quintessentially shippers discourse (one side wanting to prove they're dating and the other wanting to prove they're not, or that it isn't as obvious). and would someone even defend jimin not having a key (or people's opinions on it) unless you were on the "they're dating even if he doesn't have a key" side. usually ppl who don't care if they're dating or not, just don't care to defend a side or the other. so that's why i got curious.

Ah, this is about last night when I was commenting on a bunch of ppptm's posts while being a bit tipsy, hahaha.

Anon, you're reading a bit too much into this. I wasn't talking from a position of either believing or discrediting. I just thought the argument itself is stupid. It's so ridiculous, I can't imagine myself having a conversation in real life with someone about it and not getting laughed at. The entire idea of Jimin having a key or the code as some relationship proof or not having it which is then seen as a gotcha moment are equally dumb. I can't subscribe to any of that because I don't care for trying to (dis)prove anything.

I don't remember if I actually said I had to re-evaluate my opinion on jikook in the light of that video. That would mean I'm in the business of actively trying to connect dots that they are together or they aren't. Which I'm not doing. At least not anymore, lol. This is no longer 2020 for me. I do remember though saying more recently that they could sleep with half of SK and I wouldn't matter to me, I'd still like them and the shit they're up to each time they are together.

That's why I don't care anymore about reading lengthy essays on trying to prove their relationship and I certainly couldn't give 2 fucks about those who believe they are fucking other people. So what? They are just two guys that I see on my phone and that I like watching for various reasons. I don't hang out with them, I don't know them personally so why would I believe I have the answer? I can't stand fans' superiority complexes on this matter cause none of them is wiser than the other. And to be honest, it doesn't look like fun at all. Which is what I'm here for. For me, I enjoy shipping in a fun way. Don't throw tomatoes at me cause I'm not into preaching the supportive sermon which is a bunch of nonsense. But nonetheless, interesting to watch how fans are writing their own definitions of shipper vs supporter, how they stick in a community and how the meaning changes throughout time. Now that's another talk.

[not-a-space-alien]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

I'm not sure what prompted this but sexual orientation, like sex and gender identity, operates on fuzzy categories such that there is no way to rigidly define parts of it in a way that includes all of X and excludes all of Y 100% of the time. You can't walk up a gay man and demand he explains what exact criteria determines whether or not he's attracted to someone in a way that excludes everyone he's not attracted to because that's not how attraction works. I'm attracted to men with long hair but it's not like if I find out a man with long hair is actually a woman that somehow invalidates that attraction or means I'm not actually attracted to men with long hair. It's also not like a gay man is attracted to every single man and not attracted at all to every single woman, because again that's not how it works. People can find certain features that appear predominantly in one sex or another attractive such as body hair or big muscles or broad stature and because they're mostly attracted to men because of that and then identify as gay doesn't mean they're making an equivocal statement about sex and gender for everyone else. Please don't treat orientation like a science where there are objective, clearly defined categories that human beings can be objectively sorted into. Labels are only meaningful in social contexts and are broad strokes to define a huge variety of experiences. The idea that because something is "cultural" means it can't be driving attraction, as though attraction is a static, innate biological trait, is a fallacy and not true. I find effeminate men and masculine women attractive and that's probably been informed by the cultural context I grew up in where these things were rare. That doesn't make my attraction fake or less meaningful. If I identified as an identity only attracted to men but I was still only attracted to feminine men that wouldn't mean I'm saying men I'm not attracted to aren't men, that's just me having a type. Like there are factors other than gender, sex, and orientation that determine attraction and it's borderline homophobic to suggest having an orientation that isn't bi/pan is somehow fake or less meaningful. I think maybe you need to reevaluate how you view orientation because you have proposed a weird false dichotomy between identities as cultural performance vs identities as some immutable, inborn trait as though basically everything humans do isn't some nebulous mix of cultural performance and genetic predisposition. Identity and cultural performance are integral to the human experience even in tons of areas outside the concept of gender and orientation and not somehow meaningless.

The entire premise of this question is flawed. I try to say this gently because it's possible you're just some baby gay who doesn't know anything about anything and is genuinely curious and this isn't bad to ask at all but if this was asked in bad faith please know I'm extremely aware of how bad actors can use this train of thought to purposefully force people into a debate where they back into terf or homophobic talking points as a "gotcha"

[petitprincess1]

U r such a bitch. Can't believe you stabbed dainty in the back and harassed him

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just coming here of your own accord. I doubt he'd send people to bother me.

That being said. I didn't do anything. I knew that someone was bothering him and had dead-named him, but he never told me who. It was just some random anon that appeared in my inbox one day, which I ended up either blocking or deleting that anon. I believed him that it was just some idiot because I've had the same issues of people trying to cancel me.

As for harassing him....you mean the TWO comments I left asking to talk to him. Yes, I will fully admit that I should've let it go, but I was curious. He was still following me at the time on Twitter, so I took that as a sign. Plus, I was mildly panicked. Not even the first time I've done something like that. Maybe I need to think it through more.

But yeah, that was it. The only other messages I have of him is him saying that we talked in the past, while he was under a different name. Idk, maybe we did. I have a crappy memory.

Other than that post that got put on Twitter, I have not done anything else to Dainty. I only went to that person because they seemed to have a bit more knowledge than I. People making those kinds of posts don't automatically make them a stalker. Hell, if that were the case, then the shit that I had with Trick and 6c6 was "stalking". Besides, I only went there because of the behavior he gave me was written somewhere in one of those claims, as well as having similar experiences.

Here's the post if you're curious.

Is it wrong that I talked to someone else and allowed them to post those screenshots? Maybe, but I did my best to talk this out with Dainty. He immediately assumed that I had made that post about him, even though MANY MANY people use the same words, practically the same sentences. It's understandable for his reaction, but I said it wasn't what he thought. Yet he still blocked me. Plus, this isn't the first time he has talked over me, while being upset with me. Unfortunately, I dont have screenshots of that moment, so take it with a grain of salt if you must.

Anyone who follows me knows that I don't go out of the way to make enemies or make "gotcha" posts unless deserved. None of what was said was meant to upset him nor was the wording even vaguely directed toward him.

I'm not gonna sit here and make it seem like I'm some "victim" because I am a little guilty of fucking up. However, I also don't appreciate him unblocking me, just to leave 14 messages of guilt-tripping and trauma-dumping....and then block me again. Like, again, maybe I shouldn't have just easily allowed something like that to be published, but it's just something that didn't feel right to me.

If you wish to unfollow and/or block me, you are freely allowed. Just please know that I genuinely, genuinely (even now) mean no harm. Whatever prerogative that Beep person has, does not align with my thinking. I just wanted to bring out that ONE thing because, in my eyes, it did feel wrong. (Again, i know two wrongs don't make a right).