I know buddie is canon because in my homophobic country they change almost all their dialogues and they like to play this game called “how many times can we fit the word FRIEND in a conversation before it gets weird”.
“he’s hanging out with his Buck-> he’s hanging out with his FRIEND Buck”
“you said it, brotha” -> “you said it, FRIEND”
“when you sued the department did you stop to think what it would do to us”-> “did you stop to think what it would do to other people?” (Like who????)
Eddie and Buck both call Chris “buddy” but when Eddie says it they translate it to “sweetie” and when Buck says it they translate it to “FRIEND/Christopher”. When Oliver says him “Chris”, no he didn’t. He said “Christopher”, are you deaf. (they really really don’t want you to see any kind of parental relationship between Buck and Chris. Here gay couples can’t adopt children. I’m connecting the dots)
“There’s no one in the one I trust with my son more than you”-> “I’m giving you my son because there’s no one in the world I trust more than you” (yeah, okay, this turned out gayer)
I can’t wait to see what they’re gonna do with “go get them, cowboy”. my guess is it’s just gonna be “good luck, FRIEND!”
68 notes
·
View notes
i am always so hesitant to like or reblog posts about censorship because it's always a question of "did the OP write this because they actually believe in the nuance of the subject or did they write it because they really want to write/draw cp"
like especially on this site I can never tell. There'll be a totally normal post about letting authors write about whatever subjects they want so long as it's handled respectively, or clarifying that "just because you don't enjoy/are discomforted by a topic doesn't mean other people cannot write about it," which is something i totally agree with! Man i'm a horror and tragedy liker of course I believe in letting people write about horrible (yet often very real) subjects in a blunt and honest light.
but then there's a 50/50 chance that what's really going on there is that the op wants to pass off their "proship" nonsense as totally valid and normal, and . Well see That is where I do Not Agree. fundamental difference in portraying a dark subject as what it is (dark and horrible) and portraying it for romantic/erotic/glamorization purposes .
i can just hardly ever trust people on this site in particular to be Normal in that regard and it is so sad. I want to agree with ur anti-censorship post babygirl I swear I Just Cannot Trust that you don't mean it in That Way and I'm not even going to Indirectly promote that
8 notes
·
View notes
Shielding people from ideas will never serve them or protect them as well as preparing them to examine the ideas they encounter and determine what to do with them.
Never seeing a knife or understanding how it works will not help someone handle one safely if they end up with one. It is far far far harder to prevent ever encountering something objectionable than to learn how to deal with it responsibly.
If someone is not allowed to talk about knives but forced to juggle them anyway, there's no safe way to express that experience, nowhere to get safety tips, no one to say there are other things to juggle.
This is an obvious metaphor but apparently it's necessary because there is a distinct difference between media portrayals of literally anything and the real deal. A picture is not a mountain.
Imagination does inform reality, reality does inform imagination, but there is a marked difference between holding a thought and doing an action. The real action that impacts real people is what matters, not playing pretend. The real person made a choice - they were not forced into it by being exposed to an idea. But maybe if we stopped trying to cut off unpleasant ideas they would have had more ways to examine the concept first and then responsibly discard it. Or not, which is still on the person and their choices and not the idea they could have been exposed to in a million different ways. Censorship doesn't actually work to protect anyone. Give people the tools to examine ideas for themselves instead.
2 notes
·
View notes
"The process of classifying books can be somewhat inconsistent. Books usually get an initial designation from authors and publishers. Then, professional book reviewers usually weigh in with their own age-bracket recommendation, and distributors and booksellers can do the same. But ultimately, local library staff make the final call about the books they buy and where they should go.
[Co-founder of Idaho group Parents Against Bad Books, Carolyn] Harrison wants to change that process by giving parents a voice in that final decision, along with the library staff. But she says libraries are resistant to the idea.
"They've told us here that 'Oh no, you can't have parents involved. You must have experts choosing books for the children,'" Harrison says. "That makes no sense. Parents are the primary stakeholders for children."
....Others around the nation are trying another tactic.
A proposal in Washington state would require libraries to use a universal book-rating system, like the one voluntarilyused by the movie industry to designate films "G," "PG," "PG-13" and "R."
"We're not asking for anything unreasonable," says Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope, who proposed the plan. "This is a tool to provide parents to be able to tell whether this is appropriate book for your child. I mean, that innocence, once it's gone, it's gone."
Under Swope's proposed plan, librarians would be required to rate books according to criteria that he would set."
1 note
·
View note
Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared
The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!
6K notes
·
View notes
the puritans are still condemning Ao3 for hypothetical content. Meanwhile, Tiktok has influencer mother Jacquelyn Eleanor who is exploiting her real-life daughter for internet predators and creepy-creepy content.
Thank you to iNabber for censoring the minor in the video refs X.
Really, why do people get up in arms about the Ao3 business, when they need to take that energy and passion to platforms which endanger real kids and exploit minors for views? The priorities are disturbing and... don’t make an equation. It’s all a bunch of “baby takes their first standards and moral stature on an issue uwu”
And family vlogs that depend on child content or their kids, are an ongoing controversy for sites like youtube and tiktok, which use real children for engagement. France has already passed laws regarding this issue, but I feel the idea is more complicated in America (and other countries) despite “child labor laws” because it can be signed off as a source of income for the family, and has its own protections. In some situations, it can be harmless and the individuals who manage the channel do take precautions to protect children - youtube does have some sort of edit tool for a channel to protect it from registered child predators, but I don’t really know the details since it does sound complicated, and does not seem foolproof.
In regards to protecting other children from a family that is exploiting their minors (like the case of DaddyNightmareofFive) for known predatory viewership, that would then come down to the content site such as youtube or tiktok - since the site would need to take over measures when the channel management has failed. This isn’t happening currently unless the content is reported, because everyone who might report child exploitation is over on Ao3 screaming about something they read in a fantasy setting in a dystopia world, or something.
Meanwhile, neither youtube nor tiktok will do anything about the shameless controversy, because MONEY.
Don’t give me the whole, “uwu, if people are doing this bad stuff on Ao3 that I don’t agree with, then they might be more likely to do it in RL”
Girl! They are doing it “FURREAL” They are over on youtubers or Tikclocks doing it FURREAL! GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.
ᴰᶦˢᶜˡᵃᶦᵐᵉʳ ⁻ ᶦᵗ ᶦˢ ⁿᵒᵗᵉᵈ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᴬᵒ³ ᵐᵃʸ ⁿᵒᵗ ᵖʳᵒᵗᵉᶜᵗ ʳᵉᵃˡ ˡᶦᶠᵉ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ ᵒʳ ᵗʰᵉᶦʳ ˡᶦᵏᵉⁿᵉˢˢᵉˢ ᶦⁿ ʷʳᶦᵗᵗᵉⁿ ᶠᵒʳᵐᵃᵗ, ᵇᵘᵗ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦˢ ᵃⁿ ᶦˢˢᵘᵉ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵃᵈᵛᵒᶜᵃᵗᵉˢ ᵒᶠ ᶜᵉⁿˢᵒʳˢʰᶦᵖ ᶜᵃⁿ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳᵗᵃᵏᵉ ᵗᵒ ᶦⁿˢᵘʳᵉ ᶦˢ ᵃᵈᵈʳᵉˢˢᵉᵈ ᵒʳ ᵖʳᵒᵖᵉʳˡʸ ᶠᶦˣᵉᵈ, ᵃⁿᵈ ʷᶦˡˡ ᵏᵉᵉᵖ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶜᵒᵃˡᶦᵗᶦᵒⁿ ᶠʳᵒᵐ ˡᵒᵒᵏᶦⁿᵍ ˡᶦᵏᵉ ᵇˡᵒᵒᵈʸ ˡᵘⁿᵃᵗᶦᶜˢ.
ᴵ.ᴱ., ᴮᵉᵗʷᵉᵉⁿ ᵖʳᵒᵗᵉᶜᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ ᶠᵒʳ ᶠᶦᶜᵗᶦᵒⁿᵃˡ ᶜʰᵃʳᵃᶜᵗᵉʳ ᵒʳ ᵗʰᵉ ʳᵉᵃˡ ᵖᵉʳˢᵒⁿᵃ ᵒᶠ ᵃ ᶜʳᵉᵃᵗᵒʳ, ᶠᴼᶜᵁˢ ᴼᴺ ᵀᴴᴱ ᶜᴿᴱᴬᵀᴼᴿ ᴬᴺᴰ ᴿᴱᴹᴼⱽᴬᴸ ᴼᶠ ᶜᴼᴺᵀᴱᴺᵀ ᵀᴴᴬᵀ ᴵˢ ᴴᴬᴿᴹᶠᵁᴸ ᵀᴼ ᵀᴴᴱ ᴿᴱᴬᴸ ᴬᴺᴰ ᴸᴵⱽᴵᴺᴳ ᴾᴱᴿˢᴼᴺ. ʸᴼᵁ ᶜᴬᴺ'ᵀ ᴰᴼ ᵀᴴᴱ "ᴱⱽᴱᴿʸᵀᴴᴵᴺᴳ ᴵˢ ᴮᴬᴰ ᴮᴱᶜᴬᵁˢᴱ ᴼᴺᴱ ᵀᴴᴵᴺᴳ" ᵀᴴᴱ ᵀᴼᴾᴵᶜ ᴵˢ ᵀᴼᴼ ᴮᴿᴼᴬᴰ ᴬᴺᴰ ʸᴼᵁᴿ ᴰᴱᴹᴬᴺᴰˢ ᴬᴿᴱ ᴵᴺˢᴬᴺᴱ. ᴺᴼ ᴼᴺᴱ ᵀᴬᴷᴱˢ ʸᴼᵁ ˢᴱᴿᴵᴼᵁˢᴸʸ ᴮᴱᶜᴬᵁˢᴱ ʸᴼᵁ'ᴿᴱ ᶜᴿʸᴵᴺᴳ ᴼⱽᴱᴿ ᴬ ᴳᴿᴬᴾᴴᴵᶜ ˢᵀᴼᴿʸ ᴬᴮᴼᵁᵀ ᴿᴬᴵᴺᴮᴼᵂ ᴰᴬˢᴴ.
5 notes
·
View notes