#yes i am all of these labels. no that is not all. i AM only out at 2/7ths of what i am.

[goingrampant]

As linked in the notes, an article by anti-racist activist Tim Wise that debunks a different purported statement by MLK in favor of Zionism says that the quote used above is genuine (albeit with a different date, the one cited in the image apparently from the debunked hoax): In 1968, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, King was in Boston and attended a dinner in Cambridge along with Lipset himself and a number of black students. After the dinner, a young man apparently made a fairly harsh remark attacking Zionists as people, to which King responded: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking Anti-Semitism."

The article also cautions us to not read the statement as stating that criticizing Zionism is antisemitism, only that singling out "Zionists" can be code for "Jews" as means of making covert antisemitic statements:

So yes, King was quick to admonish one person who expressed hostility to Zionists as people. But he did not claim that opposition to Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic. And for those who criticize Zionism today and who like me are Jewish, to believe that we mean to attack Jews, as Jews, when we speak out against Israel and Zionism is absurd.

However, in making this point, it specifies something perceived as uncontested fact in 2003 that today is controversial, that MLK, like a reasonable person is perceived to be, would obviously support Israel using violence against aggressors to protect its inhabitants and continue its existence as a state:

As for King's public position on Israel, it was quite limited and hardly formed a cornerstone of his worldview. In a meeting with Jewish leaders a few weeks before his death, King noted that peace for Israelis and Arabs were both important concerns. According to King, "Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity."

But such a statement says nothing about how Israel should be constituted, nor addresses the Palestinians at all, whose lives and challenges were hardly on the world's radar screen in 1968.

So, basically, as MLK existed during his life span, he could reasonably be said to be in favor of the form of Zionism as defined by viewing Israel as a legitimate country that can and should use violence to maintain its existence but to disapprove of Zionism as defined by Kahanist aggressive expansionism, but it's still speculation to suggest he would approve of Israel using violence in the way it has in retaliation for the October 7th attack. He very well could side with Palestine. Still, it's worth note that he supported Israel with what he knew of it and its relationship to neighbors in his own context, viewed criticism of individual "Zionists" as a way of masking antisemitism toward Jews, and used language in common with people who today get labeled as supporters of genocide for failing to call for the eradication of the state and complete expulsion of all Jewish colonials. According to Wise, MLK would support a one-state solution with Jews and Arabs equally represented under a neutral government, as would necessitate the removal of both Israel as a specifically Jewish state and a Palestinian governing body with a goal of removing Jews from the region and engaging in terroristic violence.

While King would no doubt roundly condemn Palestinian violence against innocent civilians, he would also condemn the state violence of Israel... These things seem imminently clear from any honest reading of his work or examination of his life. He would be a broker for peace.

(Edited only to fix HTML glitches.)

Let’s be clear: Masking Jew-hatred as ‘anti-Zionism’ doesn’t make it any less vile. Dr. King saw through the lies back in 1967 — and we still need to call it out today.

[cultkinkcoven]

Is Lucifer your father figure or is he your lover? cause you use both terms to refer to him and it gives incest fetish vibes... yikes.

*deep inhale*

*deep sigh*

I suppose my answer to this question would be yes. Lucifer is my father, although not biologically, and yes, Lucifer is my lover. Welcome to the reality of divine/mortal relationships. You must be new.

I know this is a crazy concept, but Lord Lucifer, the God of liminality and transgression, does at times blur the lines between barriers and dance between the realms of what is acceptable and what is taboo. That's his favorite pastime activity. Or in other words, Lucifer does not adhere to human labels, he subverts them. The relationships he forms cannot be defined with only one label, and attempting to dissect his actions according to a human basis of what is acceptable will only lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

When I call Lucifer my father, I'm referring to him as my creator and origin. He made me, cultivated me, guided me into a new version of myself that is directly inspired by him. He raised me, I seek his advice, he protects me, I am his responsibility. He takes care of me. I am his son. When a nun calls her God Father, you understand what she means. I am the seed he has planted, I am the plant that sprouts, he pollinates me and he feeds on the fruit. That is the deal.

Yes, Lucifer is my lover, we obviously engage with each other sexually and we have a very affectionate relationship. The cool thing about Lucifer is that he's a God and not a human being. There is no danger of incest???? because we are not related and we are not even the same species of creature... He doesn't have a body bro...

I'm not his child son being coerced into an inappropriate relationship with their dad, (fuck sakes) I'm... a practitioner, a devotee, and also, notably, a grown man. He is... an entity...

This brings me back to something he said about this in the context of god spousal, but it's relevant here as well:

"Initiate, subject, disciple, partner, lover, beloved, pet, son, baby, star, devotee, priest, medium, meal. I don’t care which word you use.”

The reality is that neither of these words, "father" or "lover" adequately explain what I have going on with Lucifer. Lucifer is my God above all else, and the words "lover" and "father" may in certain contexts be good enough to describe his behavior. He protects, he leads, he raises like a father. He fucks like a lover. But he is truly none of those things, Lucifer is not a human man.

I was trying to find a way to word this that didn't come off like "what? it's nothing like that! y-you just don't get it!!!" because like, I'm not oblivious to the subtext. Lucifer is not oblivious to the subtext. He calls me his son. Our relationship is far from anything typical or traditional. There is a power imbalance, that's part of the dynamic.

But no, I don't have an incest fetish holy fuck, Lucifer doesn't have one either. If anything I'd say Lucifer has a fetish for incredibly intense emotions and displays of vulnerability. The unique relationship we have which has elements of both parentship and courtship is the prime playing field for those intense emotions to manifest. So yes, Lucifer holds me and teaches me like a father, even like a master, as if I were his pet to train. It's not just familial, Lucifer blurs all kinds of boundaries. He knows how to do so without going too far and hurting his followers. That's his job.

I've gotten messages like this in the past and just ignored them but I figure I might as well say something.

And if you want to know Lucifer's reaction to this ask, he laughed and said "oh no, who's going to stop me from fucking my kids?" so I guess that tells you exactly how seriously he takes this.

Tldr, bro what

[transmutationisms]

Wrt the addiction discussion, is there not a lot of overlap between the types of people you describe (e.g. people with a physical dependency, 12-steppers, people who are unhappy with their substance use, etc)? I feel like it's a mistake to treat them as universally discrete categories, even accounting for the wide range of experiences and attitudes 'addiction' encompasses. Yes the term is heavily medicalised and used to justify punitive interventions (which shouldn't happen, obviously), but couldn't the same be said of, say, queer identities given how homosexuality was listed in the DSM until fairly recently? It's not morally wrong to identify as queer just because the category itself is rooted in oppression. The term spans such a broad array of possible identities, preferences and behaviours, but a lot of people still find it useful for solidarity-building, and I think something is lost when we eschew these fluid, broad-spectrum terms in favour of finely atomised individual behaviours.

where did i say i was interested in making new discrete categories out of the addiction label? nowhere because i explicitly am not interested in makingn categories at all. reread the post.

there is no 'addicts pride' or 'pro addiction' movement comparable to the lgbt scene, which should tell you some things about quite differently weighted use of these medical terms. incidentally, many people do in fact perceive some difference between eg homosexual and gay precisely because of the former's medical and criminal history.

the term addiction is not used for "solidarity-building" please like don't make me laugh. once again it is not only "rooted in" but currently used for pathologising efforts born of theories of social degeneration. when someone says video games are addictive sugar is addictive the internet is addictive -- these are active current new claims about the supposedly deleterious social effects of technologies and practices the speaker perceives as insalubrious and threatening to the social order, specifically relying on medico-legal notions of the Addict to make these claims.

your comparison sucks anyway because there is in fact broad agreement on what eg gay means, what practices and forms of social violence it refers to: there is no such agreement as regards addiction, not in the medical discourse and not in popular use either. reread the post.

id really invite people to think about why you are so incredibly instantly defensive over this particular piece of terminology. what do you think is at stake here? it's not useful shorthand, it's not attached to meaningful political activist groups, and it's in constant semantic shift in order to make claims about new groups and activities being socially degenerate and destabilising. in order to convey anything useful or specific about how you use substances, when, or why, you are in fact already relying on actually explaining yourself beyond this term (so is your medical chart).

the umbrella term i believe you're actually grasping for here, & it's frankly embarrassing you're apparently so far removed from harm reduction activism that you don't know this & yet are sending paragraphs whinging to my inbox, is "people who use drugs." i personally think person-first is slightly corny and usually just say "drug users" or "recreational drug users" as the case may be but i have no serious objection to the former as an umbrella term.

[brainrotcharacters]

The silly thing about associating Deadpool and Wolverine with Patroclus and Achilles is that if the Greek gays had regeneration and nigh-immortality, they wouldn't have reached peak tragedy

[luckyemo]

ok i do really hate the danganronpa fanon category of "antagonists" (ie. komaeda, togami, + ouma as a group). in part because its just the wrong term for these characters and it can be confusing whos being referred to, like i saw a post saying like 'danganronpa is wild the antag will tell the protag they want them carnally and just move on no explanation' and i was like ???????????? when does junko say that to naegi?????? tsumugi said something like that????? kamukura????????????????

and my bigger issue with it, is its really hard to not see this as like a direct symptom of people ignoring women characters and over-valuing male characters. i know this accusation gets brought up a lot in fandom spaces, and then it just becomes a circular argument of misogynistic writing leads to fans favouring male characters which reinforces the demand for male focused stories etc etc or ppl being like 'im gay of course im going to have a preference for male/male stuff over things with women', but it really really does feel like women get completely pushed to the side to center two men. using the dr1 characters as an example, its not even like how kirigiri and fukawa are "pushed to the side" as romantic interests so togami and naegi can be together, its over crediting togamis character to be at an "antagonist" level when junko (and mukuro and even sakura if u want to generalize her role as 'the traitor') is Right There. it also isnt lost on me how out of the main three actual antagonists kamukura is included in fanworks/written out the least (though the 'ultimate evil abuser' kamukura vs 'totally innocent' hinata that happens frequently isnt great either...... but like at least hes there vs junko and tsumugi who are forgotten.)

but idk, i know languages changes and a group of ppl being like 'hey to our group this term means this even if is not the original definition' happens all the time. sometimes these shifts are useful, especially for the in-group doing the re-defining, but it can also be confusing and frustrating for the fandom at large when the words have other agreed upon meanings and when women are being ignored/erased

[yellllowstar]

slowly I'm recovering the beauty of discovery

(creature by half•alive)

(textless + timelapse below cut)

[mephone-1]

Hm. This is. A surplus of information. I will be. Taking it piece by piece, if that is alright with you.

Oh. I understand. I understand why you referred to your wallpaper as. “Yaoi”. Now. That information will be noted.

The illustration is. “Ship art”? Hm. Alright. I. Am not sure why it would be referred to as such, as it does not contain any ships or other water travelling vehicles. But. I will keep note of that as well.

Oh. The characters are. Inside of a ship? Hm. Well. That makes more sense. I. Have never seen the interior of a ship before, so it is understandable that I would not have recognized such a thing. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I will note that information as well. Oh. I understand that as well. So. “Mr. Bert”. Is not one of their names, but rather. A combination of their names? Hm. Alright then. I will note that.

Oh. Oh. Oh. I understand. If the label does not apply to me, you are free to continue communicating with me if you so wish. I do not mind. You are also free to leave and speak to someone else as well too. I do not mind that either. But. I am a. Fictional character. In the. World this illustration originates from? There are. Multiple worlds? Well. I believe I have been. Informed. Of an alternate world before, but. I. Hm. I will not be conversing more on this subject as I do not wish to cause myself to. Overheat and shut down. I apologize for the inconvenience.

So. The people within. Your world. They are creating Artificial Intelligence to. Replace. Illustrators and writers? That is. Strange. Within my world, I. As well as other Meeple devices, were created in order to perform the more. Menial. Tasks. That. He. Had to perform, so he could focus on his more. Creative. And. Innovative. Tasks. I. Do not especially. Enjoy. The fact that we were created for such purposes, but. I do not understand why your world has it the opposite way. I do not believe replacing the people who perform creative tasks with machines makes. Any. Sense. We are not intended for. Creative. Tasks in the first place. And. The machines do not even know what they are saying? Oh. That only makes it. Make. Less sense. Why would you replace someone with a machine that does not even know what it is doing and or saying? Your world seems. Confusing. I do not. Enjoy. How you are describing your world. It does not sound like a. Particularly. Pleasant. Place. You do not need to apologize or calm down. I understand why this is. Stressful. To you.

And. Thank you. For the utmost love and adoration. :

Oh. The term is also used to refer to. A type of. Comic? Okay. Oh. Oh. Oh. I believe I. Understand. I will note that information.

And. The term is used. Jokingly? Oh. I understand. I understand why. The person who had sent me this query. Was laughing when they had shown their wallpaper now. It is a joking term. Thank you for informing me. I will keep note of that as well.

And. Yes. It is. Very. Important. That I have correct information. If I do not, I may misinform someone, and accidentally cause something incorrect to occur.

This has been. Quite a lot of information to. “Take in”. But. I believe I have understood most, if not all of it. Thank the both of you for informing me. :

Is it cool that i have yaoi for my phone wallpaper now

Hm. I. Do not know what. “Yaoi”. Is. But. I suppose. If it is what you wanted to set your phone wallpaper to, then it is. Cool.

[revenantghost]

God, just

The way they're both terrible at taking care of others, but they both do their damndest to do it for each other the best way they know how

[timetravellingkitty]

I could elaborate on said negative feelings but that would require not having a runny nose

[craigularory-joe]

oh community episode Queer Studies and Advanced Waxing how i love you so

[cetoddle]

every woman on earth is the most beautiful show stopping incredible gorgeous person alive and 90% of men make me go ewwwwww…what is that..

[misspickman]

speaking of kon and family i am generally of the opinion that he never really puts a strict label on any of it because its more difficult than that, and something that is so core to his character is that he never had parents, but i will say its funny* how most people who say this are also the people who, when they see fans or dc call clark kons brother/cousin, cry about how labels make it less meaningful, theyre just family! and then turn around and call ma his grandma. so labels are only bad when clark is called something other than kons father right?

i think theres definitely merit to him never specifying who is what to him in this sense but i also think its kind of weird to refuse to acknowledge that ma and pa are his adoptive parents. like canonically. sure i still dont think its that simple and kon probably wouldnt just start calling ma his mom more than the word ma already implies, but its really obvious how much people HATE to acknowledge this or even consider it maybe even more than they hate it when clark is called kons brother/cousin. yknow like people got SO mad about kon referring to ma as his mom in that (bad) comic i saw people say its Worse than him being in a relationship with mgann..... like okay.... can u elaborate on that.. why is it worse exactly.... oh right it completely negates the possibility of clark being his father. right!

[strangerinalostworld]

having siblings is such an odd concept. like im currently having violent urges because my brother’s being loud as fuck and woke me up (even though he always gives me shit for staying up late so idek) but also like. i have yelled at a plethora of people, including my father, for making that kid even slightly upset. like yeah i can be an asshole to him all i want because he’s fucking annoying, but everyone else has to be nice to him because he’s lovely and amazing

[welcometogrouchland]

Words cannot express how much I love the Gloucester brothers from King Lear

[koushirouizumi]

{YU-GI-OH!} Duel Monsters Type: AMV ~ Yuugi & {Ace-implied!}Yami {Atem*} (*This AMV mainly contains 'Yami''s form) [Reading in Aro-Ace or Aro-Acespec!Yami is also Fine] {Just please respect my own headcanons too!} Title: "Taking Over Me"

Summary: "You saw me M o u r n i n g my {xxxx} for YOU, and T O U C H E D MY H A N D..."

"...Just to F I N D Y O U--"

Music © E.v.a.n.e.s.e.n.c.e/Amy Lee

Spoiler Info: -Leads up to End of Anime-only “DOMA” Arc's Yuugi & Yami Duel {Anime-Only sequences; not included in original manga} -{Mainly} D.M. Only Eps -A single clip from the original 1st series by Toei opens it, but nothing else from it is included.

*Any Lip-sync'ng was unintentional {+Any similar Might be removed in any future Remake}

Yu-Gi-Oh! © Kazuki Takahashi Yu-Gi-Oh! 1st Series {Anime} © Toei Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters {Anime} © Studio Gallop This is a FAN-WORK. NO $$$ is being made off this work.

{AMV by (Young) Me} {DO NOT REPOST} {DO NOT COPY} {DO NOT REPRODUCE MY WORKS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT MY PERMISSION}

(Note: This is an OLD work {10+ yrs old}. and one of my last YGO D. M. ones of the timeframe; however, it was still very early on in my making of these type of works {AMVs} when I finished this. The footage used will reflect this, as it was made before widespread transition into H.D. Footages. Please be understanding.) [There may be intent for me to remake it someday!] Overall, it is Complete, and other than removing accidental lipsyncs; Most of it I do not plan to change.

Note: -This video’s embed may randomly not display at times, Showing like it’s “down”, but it’s not at this time! {It usually happens late at night[s] or seemingly when Tumblr and/or Vimeo is experiencing very high traffic} If that happens, please consider watching the Direct link here!

{I am NOT taking new Requests [or making changes to this one] (+for this series) at this time. Please DO NOT Ask!}

[bomberqueen17]

How To Shop For Fabric Online

RIP Joann's. Now many places in the US no longer have a local fabric store, such as it even was toward the end.

There are some good posts going around about where to shop for fabric and craft supplies online, like this one for example. But if you're a beginner-to-intermediate sewist, and the way you've always shopped for fabric is by going to the store and touching it, it can be a hard, even cruel adjustment to suddenly be looking at a photo online and trying to piece together from the inconsistent descriptions what you're actually looking at.

So I'm going to just try to bang together a little primer on What Things Are Called, and how to educate yourself, so that you don't have to do what I did and just buy a ton of inappropriate stuff you wound up not being able to use for what you'd thought. And I will link to some resources that will help with this. This will be garment-sewing-centric but will, I think, be fairly broadly applicable.

The first thing is to look carefully at your desired project. If it is a commercial pattern, it will usually tell you what kind of fabric you need, but it will describe it in not the same words it's often sold under. If it is NOT a commercial pattern and you're kind of winging it, it's even harder. So here is how to start figuring out what you need.

Number one: Knit or Woven?

Quilting fabric is woven. If you are making a quilt, you want a woven. Most craft projects are made with woven fabric-- tote bags, upholstery, you name it.

Many garments are knits. T-shirts, yoga pants, cardigans. It is easy to know, because knits stretch. They can either stretch both ways (along the length and along the width) or just one way (usually along the width); this is confusingly either called 2-way stretch or 4-way stretch. Yes, stores are inconsistent. Look carefully at the description, and they will usually specify-- "along the grain" or "in all directions". Some garments require stretch only around the body-- maxi skirts, knit dresses etc-- while some absolutely need stretch both ways, like bathing suits.

No, you absolutely cannot clone your favorite knit t-shirt in quilting cotton. It will not fit. Most knit garments have "negative ease", meaning they are smaller than your body and stretch to fit. All woven garments have "positive ease", meaning they are larger than your body, unless very firm shaping undergarments are used.

SMALL EXCEPTION: There exist "stretch wovens", which are woven fabrics made with elastic fibers. These will be labeled as such. They are actually harder to sew with than regular wovens because they almost never have their stretch percentage labeled; they are NOT suitable for knit patterns. Avoid them, until you are more advanced and know how to accomodate them, is my advice!

Number two: WEIGHT.

How heavy is the fabric? How thick? How thin? This is measured in two main ways-- ounces per yard (denim is often 8oz, 10 oz, 12 oz) or grams per square meter. But many fabric retailers do not tell you a weight, they use words like "bottomweight" or "dress-weight", and you have to learn to figure out what they mean by that.

My lifehack for learning these has been go to go to ready-to-wear clothing retailers and see if they give the weights of the fabric their garments are made from. (Yes, I learned how to shop for clothes online instead of in-store years ago, because I am fat; some of us have had to do this a long time.)

If you are making a pair of trousers, you need heavier fabric than if you are making a blouse. Do not buy a floaty translucent chiffon to make your work trousers, it will not work no matter how cute the color is. Learn how the different weights of fabric are described, and you will improve your odds of finding what you need.

Number three: DRAPE.

Is it stiff? Is it fluid? Is it soft? is it firm? There are a lot of very artsy words used for this, and you may find yourself puzzling over things with a fluid hand, or a dry, crisp hand, or "a lot of drape", or maybe the listing doesn't describe it at all. This segues neatly into another technical thing, which is the WEAVE of the fabric. There is a dizzying array of words that tell you what kind of fabric it is-- twill, tabby, challis, chiffon, crepe, organza, georgette. And these will give you insight into the drape, and thus into the texture/usability of this fabric, and how suitable it may or may not be for your project.

I know it's a lot to think about but I am now going to give you resources for where to see all this stuff.

Number one is Mood Fabrics, which I can't believe hasn't been in any of the posts I've seen so far. They are a huge store in NYC's Fashion District and yes you can go there, but when I went there it overwhelmed me so much I left empty-handed. But what they have is AN INCREDIBLE WEBSITE. They have everything on there, and what's most important for you, their listings are INCREDIBLY consistent. They have VIDEOS of many of the fabrics, where a sales associate will hold it, wave it, stretch it, and tell you verbally what it is and what it's for, in about thirty seconds. HUNDREDS of these videos.

Whether you want to buy from them or not, go to Mood Fabrics, click around, find their listings, and read them. They will tell you fabric content, weight (usually gsm), often weave, they have little graphics that show you if it's for pants, dresses, shirts. And they have those videos. Look at the listings, watch the videos, and you will leave knowing a lot more about how to look at an online listing of fabric and know what you're getting.

Another really excellent website for this is Stonemountain & Daughter. I've actually not bought anything from them yet (they came highly recommended, but they're not cheap), but their online listings are, again, very thorough and very detailed. They always have a picture of the fabric with a fold in it held in place by a pin, which does more to help you understand the weight and drape of a fabric than any other static image ever could-- that visual, combined with how informative the listings are, has helped me learn to estimate fabric weights on other sites very effectively.

And here is a page that's ostensibly about how to wash silk, but I found it so useful because it gives such a clear image of what each weave/type of silk fabric looks and drapes like. I've never bought anything from these guys either, but this is a good resource.

Learn a little bit about fabric so you know what you're looking for, and you can begin to replace some of that "i just have to go and feel it in person" problem. There will still be trial and error, but you'll have a better starting place at least.