#what if a fucking mouse said that to a fucking kia sorento

[deadbeat-deinonychus]

BUT WHAT IF A MOUSE SAID THAT TO A KIA SORENTO???

[scoobydoodean]

DEAN Look, man, I get it, okay? You meet a girl, you feel that spark – there's nothing better. But this freak? SAM grabs his jacket and gets up from a chair at the table. DEAN I didn't mean – SAM Yeah, you did. 

AND IF A MOUSE SAID THIS ABOUT A KIA SORENTO?!?!?!?!

Oh my GOD Sam she's MURDERING ADDICTS AND FEEDING THEIR BRAINS TO HER CHILD. That is not the same thing as you feeling like a freak as a kid because YOU WERE ALWAYS THE NEW KID IN TOWN and bonding with Amy over that!!! WHAT THE FUCK.

SAM Look, I see the way you look at me, Dean, like I'm a grenade and you're waiting for me to go off.

Here we go persecuting Dean for thought crimes yet again. Asking Sam if he's okay is never alright. It is always an evil and cruel thing to ask no matter how gently or carefully it's asked. God forbid Dean CARE. God forbid Dean ask Sam perfectly gently and undramatically whether he thinks his hallucinations are getting better or not (after Bobby suggested they were getting better). Also—this cuts back to 7.02 where Sam hallucinated Dean saying all the negative things Sam was thinking about himself. And now the actual Dean is paying the price for a conversation between them that Sam FUCKING. MADE. UP.

DEAN Sam – SAM I'm not going off. Look, I might be a freak, but that's not the same as dangerous.

You shot at Dean last episode while you were hallucinating. But also, he never called you dangerous. He's worried first and foremost about YOU, you big oaf.

DEAN I didn't say – SAM It's okay. Say it.

Ever notice how Sam can't fucking help talking over Dean and cutting him off every time he's decided he knows what Dean is fucking thinking about him? If he let Dean speak, it might hamper Sam's attempts to project beliefs onto Dean that aren't fucking fair and Sam can't have that!

SAM I've spent a lot of my life trying to be normal, but come on. I'm not normal. Look at all the crap I've done, look at me now. I'm a grade-A freak. But I'm managing it. And so is Amy.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT. YOU ARE NOT HUNTING PEOPLE DOWN IN THE WOODS AND EATING THEIR ORGANS. YOU ARE SEEING THINGS BECAUSE YOU ARE TRAUMATIZED FROM BEING IN HELL WITH THE DEVIL. WHAT THE FUCK.

[moonyinpisces]

re: your last post, i would really love to get this ask answered but i can understand if you don't (and i definitely do not expect this to be answered publicly), but is there a post that i can read in which you've explained your "love and sex are connected" stance? i ask because i'm so curious to read your thoughts about it, coming from someone who agrees with that thought, i'm just curious about the specifics of what do you mean when you say that (for example: does that mean that by definition asexual love is platonic and not romantic? is there space for asexuality or aromanticism in this idea? i think that love and sex are connected and that there still are people who are asexual and can have partnerships, so that's why i was curious about more details on that).

sorry for bothering you and thank you in advance if you answer my question 🩷

you're totally fine! i hope it's cool i answered it publicly, i think it's a topic that a lot of people shy away from. luckily, i have little to no self preservation. i'll just re-explain my stance here 👇

i think just inherently, if we call a piece of media a love story it implies sex. this is a fact no matter how deep you worm your way into internet culture and try to convince yourself otherwise. now that doesn't mean sex is going to happen, or even be mentioned--that has to do with the rating/presentation of the media, not the media itself (one time almost a year ago i mentioned this same topic and someone specifically cited the little mermaid as ace rep. and i was like in the sequel they... literally have a child? and then the person blocked me lol)

now can love be platonic? absolutely. can people have love for others and not want to fuck them? yeah, i would say a majority of love experienced globally is the platonic/familial sort lol. but a love story is only platonic if it's designated as platonic, meaning that at its root, the implication is sex. if i want to divorce sex from the romance, i have to explicitly define it as such. meaning if we call, for example, good omens a love story, that implies sex and sexual attraction unless the canon ever explicitly tells us differently. a love story includes sex unless it can prove it doesn't, that's just... the nature of being a human being living in a human society lol

and i think that's a scary concept to people who have labeled themselves as sex-repulsed without digging into WHY they feel that way in the first place. but i think further than that people are too bogged down in connecting their identities with fiction to the point that the work becomes divorced from fiction, so you have huge swathes of people claiming characters as whatever they want external to the canon in order to feel secure in their own identity. fascinating subject, too dense to get into in a tumblr ask haha

i think at the crux of it what i need people to understand is characters are not real people, they do not have aspects deeper than what we're shown in the canon. characters are simply functions of the plot. like take two characters in a love story. sure, if these WERE real people, TECHNICALLY someone could say "they can have sex and actively want to have sex and be attracted to each other and still be asexual!" which. uh, sure, but if a mouse said that about a kia sorento, etc etc. like that potential reading has so little bearing on the story that i know it's just pulled out of someone's ass so they can manufacture deeper meaning and "representation" out of the media they consume because they're not getting that representation elsewhere. which sucks! but! just because something COULD be canon doesn't mean it IS canon and in our current climate of media illiteracy, that's the unfortunate trend to how people are choosing to consume media. self-first rather than story-first, internal vs external, individual vs collective. you can go on and on.

and of course. of course. you can negate ALL of this by just telling me it's not that serious and media is consumed in the preferred method of the consumer, that's what it's meant for. i am fully self-aware i come at this like i have two english degrees. and for that fact, rest assured i will always be deeply deeply uncool

[loving-family-poll]

The CW is also blatantly homophobic, so the real question is, would a good network have allowed them to kiss? Because if Amma/Camille had been on the CW they wouldn't have kissed either. So, would HBO have let Sam and Dean kiss?

Perhaps they're equally explicit, and the fault lies with the networks. 🤔

Getting a real "but if a mouse said this about a kia sorento" energy from this one. Maybe if the comics code authority hadn't existed batman and robin would've been fucking nasty this whole time so they're the REAL most explicit ship. What the hell are you talking about

[menlove]

this is exactly what I'm talking about. lol. like all I said was that masculine women and feminine men are not privileged and ur gonna write an essay in the tags about how hard it is to have an hourglass figure while also deriding people you deem obese and saying they have more options? you're for real gonna complain abt how hard it is to have an hourglass figure and be feminine? and blame obese people right along with thin people? be so fucking serious rn.

also do you think masculine women with hourglass figures have an easier time finding clothes in the men's section? they don't lmfao. literally nothing in the men's section is built for afab bodies. they have the exact same fucking issues

giving very much "but if a mouse said this about a kia sorento"

[night-dark-woods]

.

[izzyliker]

As a contrast to that other anon: thank you for talking about that goddamn post about weaponized incompetence! I get why people react badly to it, because it's hard not to feel a bit attacked, but it's a hugely common thing that tons of people do. It's not just men (though them doing it is the most normalized bc of misogyny), it's also a common abuse technique in general and it fucking sucks to be the victim of it, ESPECIALLY when you're disabled yourself and getting overwhelmed by housework that people refuse to help with.

I hate seeing that post on my dashboard because it feels like it's just using ableism as a pawn to make people shut up about misogyny and abuse.

every time i see that post i get so annoyed it’s like the freaking What if a mouse said this about a kia sorento post

[knightofbalance-13]

https://rwbycrit.tumblr.com/post/165522291637/knightofbalance-13

Really shouldn’t keep doing this: Makes you look bad.

i’ll admit: i didn’t read much of this bullshit bc i couldn’t make it more than like 3 lines inÂ

Manipulative language and outright showing you don’t know what you are talking about.

1. idk why you keep bringing your lgbt friends up? they didn’t make this post you did, and, as far as i know, you’re heterosexual? so me saying you’re heterosexual is not me not considering a person h*mosexual if they disagree with me lmao. hope you stretched  before you reached tho.

That would be a good point...If I was talking about myself. the opinions I expressed are those I share with my friends and they have even more severe opinions as well. you disregarding it TWICE now on the assumption that a single heterosexual is saying this despite being told numerous that is not the case is you denying that their opinions aren't valid or they don’t count. Only one stretching is the person refusing to read.

1a. “when a vats [sic] majority of homosexuals don’t acre [sic] and equal number of people who call it outright oppose you. All stuff I’ve seen and noted from my friends. ” you have like 6 lgbt friends, that’s not a “majority of h*moseuxals” lmao

Too bad the stuff that applies to is the one NOT saying “the vats majority of homosexuals” but rather the “equal number” part. Maybe you should before you comment. that or have a higher reading comprehension tha a five year old.

2. you called me a homophobe? even tho i cant? be a homophobe? because i’m literally gay? like i, a lesbian, cannot be homophobic. i can only have internalized homophobia and cannot perpetuate homophobia in any meaningful way as an out, trans lesbian. how many times do i gotta say that, dude?

Too bad you don’t need to perpetuate homophobia TO BE a homophobe. You just need to think that all homosexuals are bad or, in your case, interchangeable IE acting like only people who agree with you can be LGBT.

And just because eyou’re gay doesn’t mean you can’t be a homophobe. It’s called Boomerang bigot and it happens: Sort of like saying “I’m white so my opinion doesn’t matter” is being racist because you are devaluing all white people for being white.

2b. i don’t only consider people gay if they agree with me? i consider people gay if they’re gay? and you are not? ???? i’ll have an actual convo with a gay person about something we disagree with, but you, sir, are not gay. and i’m not interested in your hetero opinions on gay issues.

Really? @mageknight14 @ula-star @icindernikos @rainbowloliofjustice @tumblezwei Why don’t you guys go ahead and talk for yourselves. But let me guess, if they agree with they obviously don’t count, Am I right?

3. what the fuck is a “gay ship tease” if not “hinting at a q*eer character when there is none?”Â

Gay ship tease can happen  even if there is a different LGBT character in the show. You can have gay ship tease if say, Ruby is asexual. It isn’t queerbaiting because there's already an LGBT character. If there wasn't one then it might be queerbaiting if there is no LGBT character at the end. Ya know, all stuff I explained in my original post.

3a. “heterosexual ships get teased all the time and never come true”. this is literally “what if a mouse said this to a kia sorento?????” its not the same, dumbass. there’s no such thing as “heterobaiting”, which is basically what you’re claiming here, bc heterosexual rep is gonna happen, there’s no doubt about it. lgbt rep is not the same as hetero rep bc lgbt rep is so rare and even moreso rarely done well.Â

Actually, you’re the one that analogy applies to because I never once talked about representation: Just ships. So: Moving The Goalposts.

3b. you tried to disprove q*eerbaiting by citing Sherlock… one of the most particularly cited examples of q*eerbaiting….. as well as well-known homophobic show… seeing as they made Irene Alder a lesbian,,, and then made her attracted to Sherlock for whatever reason…… and then they had Moriarty, who was q*eercoded and would perfectly fit in among Hays Code era q*eercoded villains. lmao you really tried it tho?

Proof? No? Well considering you tendency to scree\am homophobia at stuff you don’t like, your word is worthless here.          

4. ,and here’s where i really lost it,: cishet is not a slur. the fact that i actually have to type that out and tell you that is hilarious to me. “cishet” is shorthand for “cisgender heterosexual”. “cishet” has never been used in the derogatory sense, except maybe as a joke on tumblr among lgbt people as a coping mechanism, but cishet people have never been oppressed for being cishet.

And yet you sue it to devalue my opinion, shut me up and debunk me on WHAT I am. Not to mention how you ignore my sources and bring up none of your own

cishet has never been used as an actual slur. it is in no way a slur. ‘q*eer’ on the other hand, is absolutely a slur. it has a long history of being a slur. it’s not even just an antiquated slur. i myself, a 21 yr old living in a large city, have been called ‘q*eer’ as a slur.

And you used cishet in the same way: Your point being?

some people consider ‘q*eer’ to be a reclaimed slur, but not all of us. i don’t like saying it bc i has been used against me. kob, you have no right to use the term “q*eer” as you cannot reclaim it. no amount of lgbt friends will ever change that.

I wasn’t reclaiming that: I was just treating you as you treat me. If you see it as a slur, then most likely you know you were using Cishet as a slur ergo you have no right to complain.

i can’t take this dude seriously. kob really thinks homophobia is “demonized” in society? this society, where “gay panic” is a legitimate, and legal defense in all US states minus California and Illinois? where 2016 was the deadliest year for the lgbt community? where the worst mass shooting in American history was at the Pulse Nightclub in 2016? and people wouldn’t even admit that it was about killing gay people?Â

because some people WOULD try to force it: some gay people are like that. Are all of them? FUCK NO, I would bet money that they don’t even make up 1% but it happens and can happen. I’m not gonna defend them if they try calling that to get away but I will listen and look at the facts. Not that I am happy about THIS at all but I have to be somewhat professional here.

And mind telling me WHERE most LGBT died? Because if it’s in the Middle East, that isn’t in America where we’re talking about.

And one shooting done by one person is not homophobia on a country or worldwide scale. The guy is seen as a monster and is heavily hated and looked down upon and the event is treated as tragic. If homophobia WAS okay, no one would have talked about this or looked into it.

And what people? Who? Proof?

yeah, it’s 2017. and homophobia is still alive and well. kob here prove it.Â

When did you change your name to “Kob?” I mean, I’m not the one who disregards LGBT people unless they agree with me or think LGBT people are so fragile they need every ship granted to them.