#i don't want to argue or be accused of being immoral for not taking a hard stance on an incredibly complex issue.

[vamptastic]

i genuinely don't understand what capitalist countries stand to gain by fighting each other instead of collaborating economically. like why does the us warmonger against china when we would benefit more from trade? ostensibly it's for moral reasons, but regardless of the veracity of any given claim i think the united states has shown itself to prioritize economic success over human rights on a number of occasions especially during the cold war. i suppose i assume most wars are waged on the grounds of economic gain (natural resources, global political power, straight up money in the form of the military-industrial complex) but you could make an equally solid argument that just as many are waged over purely social and political issues- ethnic and religious conflict, blind nationalism, the whims of a dictator. it just confuses me at times, i guess. i have a hard time believing that the united states is bound and determined to wage war against china over human rights abuses, infringing on other countries sovereignty, and neo-colonialism in africa when we've propped up fascist dictators in many a country who've done far worse. is it literally just the association with communism? because surely whatever evil fuckers actually want war know that china is very far from communist right now. is it just nationalism? the idea that we must be on the top of the totem pole, even if our economy would stand to gain from trade? because i suppose i could believe that, but i think if that was true we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today in the first place. blegh. at the end of the day i am also ignoring the fact that many many different groups of people want war against china for reasons ranging from sinophobic jingoist nationalism to a genuine belief that the united states is a global moral watchdog determined to establish ~democracy~ worldwide. but there is a definite slant to media coverage on china right now, genuine attempts at disinformation, and given that the media in the us is so deeply tied to corporate interests it leads me to believe that there has to be some economic motive here, and it frustrates me that i can't figure out what it is.

#this post is long and convoluted and circuitous. sorry. #please do not try to like. publically own me or erupt into moral outrage over this post if you're reading it btw. #suppose i would be interested in hearing others takes on this but im just curious i genuinely don't have answers here #i don't want to argue or be accused of being immoral for not taking a hard stance on an incredibly complex issue. #anyway. i am also not trying to say that either the us or china are ' good ' or ' bad ' #insomuch as any country can be good or bad. particularly a country millenia old or one that changes leadership every four years. #individual actions taken by each government are undeniably bad. yes. #but as a us citizen i find it very difficult to find reliable information about what is happening in other countries. #our media has become so wildly polarized that you can often figure out national issues by looking at both sides #but when the media is unified on portraying one falsehood both left and right? you're fucked. #often media that claims to be neutral could be more accurately described as western #i trust ap and the bbc on us politics - not global politics. #all that being said when it comes to things like the treatment of uighur muslims or the political situation in hong kong and taiwan. #i'm not entirely sure what to believe. #and i also believe that if every single immoral act the us claims china has done is real... we still wouldn't wage war based purely on that #...i do genuinely think the claims that china is colonizing africa by offering loans is horseshit though #even if it was itd be fucking rich for european countries that wrecked africa in the first place #to moralize about the means by which another global power allows them potential economic power #the problem arises from capitalism on a global scale itself i mean #there is no way to build up infrastructure and trade routes for an entire continent without #in some way eventually profiting from it #i do see the comparison to the us and latin america and i think that's kinda apt but #the way ppl talk about it you'd think they were doing what france did to haiti good god

[hot-take-tournament]

hi, I'm the original Barbie movie hot take submitter. now that the poll's over and with about 80 people agreeing with me in total (which is honestly way more than i was expecting...) i guess... yeah i should probably address some of these comments, because i don't know which are in good faith and which aren't, but like i said at the beginning of my justification, it's something that's really important to me on a personal level and i saw at least a few people expressing sympathy or wanting to understand better where i was coming from. (again I'm autistic and i can't be sure it wasn't just sarcastic remarks, but it looked like at least a few people were willing to listen.)

this sentence here is your warning that I'm going to continue to talk about my experience. if you hated my take and/or were disturbed by it and would be upset to empathize with my point of view any further, this is your reminder to just stop reading here.

...

so first of all, i did hold myself back, writing that submission. i mentioned upfront that i kept it short, but i guess it only looks shortened if you know how much i have to say about it. i didn't even know if it would make it in so i did gloss over a couple things that may have led to misinterpretation (though a lot of those notes felt like a "how dare you say we piss on the poor" sort of moment (reference to a response on a different post, which accused Tumblr users of having "piss-poor reading comprehension")).

....anyway, this is a more comprehensive and thorough version of my viewpoint. it is long.

the first thing i would like to address is that i noticed a lot of people saying i was pulling it out of nowhere and "projecting (derogatory??)". and.... like.... yes. i know that. i basically said so explicitly when i said "I disliked this movie for heavily personal reasons". that's the point of submitting it to a hot takes blog; this is something that i think most people will disagree with me on, because it's nowhere near the "objective" interpretation of the movie, but it's something that a select few might resonate very strongly with. this movie didn't actually say any of the things that I said it did, on an explicit level. but there were undertones of it the whole way through that triggered multiple breakdowns since its release, because of my particular media sensitivities that i didn't know would be in this movie. you can think of it like I'm accusing this movie of having "traces of peanuts" rather than being a peanut dish. if I'm allergic to peanuts it still sucks, and is unsafe for people with my triggers. (still my fault for going to see the movie, it's not like it's immoral for it to have triggering topics in it. I just regret it and am bitter that everyone seems to unanimously agree that it has no problems, that's all.) I also see that a lot of people were not bothered by these same things that I was, and I respect that. And I'm glad that people were able to enjoy it— my intention was mostly "it seems like no one hated this movie but me. did anyone else share this interpretation?".

...honestly, the movie itself, on an objective level, wasn't actually too horrible. it was kind of sad and depressing, but i would've left it feeling kind of mediocre if it weren't for its online boom. everyone seems to be praising this movie for being incredible and groundbreaking and progressive, but like this other anon said (https://www.tumblr.com/hot-take-tournament/724649240320671744/while-everyone-is-already-arguing-over-the-barbie?source=share), it really... just feels like politically regressing, to me. speaking as someone who is various flavors of non-binary (multigender), and who is transgender and intersex, i am extremely passionate about gender rights. and this movie felt the same as really old radfem ideals of feminism that boiled down to "what if we kept the gender essentialism but we made it so (cis) women were good and sacred (but still perceived as weak, helpless, useless, etc.)". I saw many similar sentiments in the notes of the original poll that I agreed with, saying the movie barely was feminist if at all. I especially agreed with someone (don't remember who) who mentioned that it was kind of misogynistic and backwards for all the women to get brainwashed instantly the moment someone suggests a patriarchy. this movie really said "women are just helpless little children that deserve the world, and the men need to carefully watch what they do and be kept in check, because if they get too confident they're naturally inclined to establish dictatorships and be cruel and evil to the women! and of course the women would roll over and accept it if that happened because they're just helpless little lambs that can't think for themselves" like how is that feminist? i thought everyone was on the same page here that women are people. like people with agency that can do things. and the movie just felt extremely.... belittling of women's actual capability to do things, and demonizing of men's emotions. like i thought these were points that we've already been through, societally. but no. "best feminist movie", "so progressive", "groundbreaking".... like... what?? it's groundbreaking because... there was a patriarchy and no one's ever done that before??? like what is this, the feminism version of "Disney's first gay character"??? is it progressive because Barbie had One Conversation with an old lady who was (sarcastic gasp) happy??? (Admittedly that scene was pretty sweet, I'm not actually upset about that one. but like why is that the highlight i keep seeing everyone come away with. like is it groundbreaking for one (1) old person to be happy?? i would've preferred if there were like. you know. just reasonable casual representation for diverse bodies (but that's ok I wasn't expecting something like that from a mainstream movie anyway.))

...and since a lot of people were upset that I didn't address Barbie herself: yeah, ok, I think the existential crisis stuff was pretty neat, I think she genuinely did a decent amount of growing over the course of the movie, I think her character arc wasn't too bad if you look at it from her point of view. but i think, like ken, she needs to be held accountable for the things she did BEFORE that character growth. a lot of people in the notes mentioned her "forgiveness" at the end, and... yeah, I guess I will admit that's "groundbreaking" for a movie this mainstream, but that is not a compliment. it felt so hollow to me, and again that's just "projection" because when I say "it felt hollow", I mean that it sounds exactly like things I was told by toxic friends as a kid. but I think a certain amount of projection is necessary to empathize with a movie, at least the way I watch them. I don't think that relating stories to your own experience is a bad thing.

.... right, back to barbie's whole thing with "forgiveness". to forgive someone is to put yourself in a social position "above" their own. it's unequal by nature— it creates a social unbalance where one party "forgives" (gracious, generous, implied power of judgement over the other) and the other party "has sinned" (in the wrong, by default should be punished, deserves to suffer unless they properly repent). this sort of punitive structure was used against me and some people close to me and so I have extremely personal triggers around disingenuous apologies and forgiveness. (no, I'm not saying that forgiving people is evil, and I'm not saying that Ken did nothing wrong. this is about Barbie now.)

i don't think Barbie should have forgiven Ken. and i don't think Ken should have forgiven Barbie, either (though he was never given the option, because that would be admitting that she treated him like garbage). i think if Barbie was going to "forgive" Ken, if she really wanted to have a real platonic relationship with Ken at the end of the movie, she should have first acknowledged that she had never been a good friend to him, that he was never treated well on a base human relationship level. and i think she should have apologized for it. a real apology where she empathizes and understands how she hurt him and tries to do better, and acknowledges that she was just as lost as he was. and then lets him forgive her, too. but instead she just cuts straight to her own "forgiveness", skipping past any potential accusations of her own treatment of him, to assert her own dominance and center his own wrongdoings. I think they should have either BOTH admitted they didn't know what they were doing and were shitty to each other, or they should have both gone their separate ways bitterly and with their self confidence intact.

like I've seen some people saying, both on my dash and in the notes of this post, this is a tragic movie about two sad lost people trying to figure out how to break social conventions for the first time, trying to understand how to be more than just a Doll with a Role. and naturally, a movie like that has both of them acting shitty to each other within those roles; Barbie from the start of the movie, because she doesn't WANT a relationship with Ken and she seems to hold this against him, and Ken throughout the movie as he tries to understand why he never seems to be enough. Barbie repeatedly condescends upon and belittles him and is constantly aggravated with him and makes him feel small and burdensome and whiny and exaggerative. she makes fun of his fun names and treats him like a stupid and annoying child. and while some of you in the notes are out here laughing and saying "welcome to the real world for women", "that's just misogyny"— and?? is the moral here that misogyny is funny when it happens to men?? because it does happen to men. i know closeted trans men that are subjected to it every day and it just. seems so low to say "misogyny is good" ever. no matter what the end of that sentence is. to imply that some people can deserve misogyny and mistreatment "if they're men" or "if they're annoying" or "if they're clingy" like... this is part of why i submitted this take. i thought we were socially on the page that misogyny is wrong and sucks. and just because this worldbuilding sets it up so that only Kens experience misogyny doesn't make it suddenly just? either it's a human right to be treated with dignity, or you are supporting misogyny. there's no way to say "but it's funny if i can be vindictive about it" without accidentally validating that defense.

...I went on a tangent again. but what I mean is that Barbie herself was an ASSHOLE to Ken. she didn't want him around but felt obligated to support him, and the solution to that should be to make it so he can support himself. but instead she just feels burdened by him and takes it out on him by belittling his suffering and treating him like his every complaint and need were meaningless or annoying. should it have been her obligation to deal with all of his needs? fuck no! but to act like she could, and wanted to, like she was his friend, when she really just wanted to be free of him... that sucks. and it actively kept him shackled to her. and like, she didn't know better, but neither did Ken. they were both lost souls hurting one another by participating in the only thing they knew: an abusive power structure. the only thing Ken did wrong was.... also wanting to participate in that power structure from the "wrong end". it wasn't okay when Ken did it, but it's notable that Barbie did it first. and that they BOTH needed to apologize for treating each other like shit. and they BOTH needed to empathize with and forgive each other, knowing that they're in a better place now and that neither of them knew what they wanted before. they BOTH fucked up and they BOTH suffered for it. if both, or neither, of them had forgiven each other, then this would've just been an interesting and pretty sad movie with at least some resolution.

.... but INSTEAD what happened was that only Ken was shamed and felt like shit, because he crossed the line that Barbie was supposed to have total dominion over. and Barbie was never held accountable for her treatment of Ken, even though it came from the same misguided and hurtful place that Ken's actions did. I'm not claiming that what Ken did was good, or that he's a pathetic little meow meow and everyone hates him for no reason. but Barbie repeatedly condescends and bullies him at the start of the movie to take out her frustration with her situation, and while it's understandable why she's frustrated, that's not okay to do to him, just as much as it wasn't okay for Ken to "turn the tables" on her so to speak. this is kind of an eye for an eye situation. he only did to her what he had already been experiencing himself. and then for her to be the only one to "forgive", implies that it was okay to do to him, and therefore that it's only wrong if he does it.

misogyny is not okay just because you put it in a specific setting or applied it to specific people. and the same thing for pretending to be friends with someone you hate and then bullying them???. it's not "funny" when a woman attacks a man, and if you think it is, that's rooted in misogyny itself. because why else would you not see women as "real" threats or abusers? abuse could only possibly be twisted around into something funny if you think it can't cause real harm, and that's steeped in the sentiments that women are useless, powerless, and helpless, and that men are inherently powerful and able to control their situation. im sick of it. i feel like this movie genuinely pushed back gender equality by like 20 years. not everything is Men Versus Women and if you're centering the gender binary that much like it fucking means that much, you're erasing non-binary people too?? I'm just. I'm just sick of it, I'm sick of gender essentialism and stereotypes and hollow friendships. sighs. ok sorry this paragraph was just a vent.

anyway. this movie would not have impacted me this negatively if it weren't for the way I hear people talking about it. as if it's amazing and the next step in gender rights even though it basically devolved the understanding of gender back into "maybe............. do you think girls could do things? without dating a man..? or is that a little silly.... no wow!! actually yes! women can sometimes... not date!!". (making a spectacle out of obtaining basic relationship agency???) ...and this is mostly, again, just my own triggers, which over the course of this poll I am realizing are real triggers for me, but... yeah. reminds me of my tirf friend group that shamed anyone who was too forward or too masculine. that would nitpick at people's social mistakes to keep them in check and on their toes.

tldr; I'm so fucking tired of gender essentialism and I went to see this movie thinking it was progressive hot shit just to discover it was Social Shaming But It's Funny Because We're Subjecting Men To It This Time. not very funny when I know so many transmascs who are punished for being women when they aren't. and Ken fucked up, but Barbie fucked up too. neither of them were good for each other and they were hurting each other the whole time, but Barbie never owned up to it and then on top of that "forgave" Ken in a way that was just personally triggering for me. (Not evil, not necessarily malicious. but upsetting for me on a personal level because of my sensitivities).

anyway. thanks for reading if you did. I'm probably not gonna check the notes on this one but just know that it does mean a lot, the few people who did agree with me. I wasn't even expecting 80 people, maybe more like 20. I was fully expecting to get 98% ratioed, considering how positively everyone talks about this movie.

(i hope you have a great day too, mod! my apologies for how long and impassioned this got. I hope this take was entertaining for you at least??)

.

#not a poll #asks #barbie discourse #barbie spoilers

[sophieinwonderland]

'And... this might be a highly controversial take, but... isn't there already a strong relation between the plural and alterhuman communities with zoophilia?'

...no. no no no no.

anyone who argues this is wrong, and if there is anyone in the community who DOES think this way, then they're usually cut out because hey, we don't want animal abusers in our community. and in fact there have been many posts in the therian tag about this.

why are you going out of your way to defend zoophiles? like imagine if you made the same argument, but for MAPs. that's what you're doing here and it's not a great look.

What makes you think I care or have ever cared about how something looks? The truth of a thing isn't dependent on how popular it is.

Zoophilia means an attraction to animals. It does not mean someone who engages in sexual activity with animals. It does not mean that they're an animal abuser or commit acts of bestiality.

And the problem is that who that label gets applied to isn't up to you. Maybe you want to avoid the label because of the negative stigma, but the enemy literally won't care.

You can try to shout "it's not zoophilia because I'm only attracted to anthropomorphic animals," or "it's not zoophilia because I'm only attracted to cartoon animals" all you want, but the outside observer is not going to care about this distinction. Especially since these distinctions are mostly made up by the communities who are trying to distance themselves from accusations of zoophilia and aren't really included in the definition.

I think we can all agree that biological nonhuman animals cannot consent and that bestiality is wrong.

But what actually constitutes zoophilia is so much murkier.

Is someone attracted to anthropomorphic animals a zoophile?

What about someone attracted to fictional animals like Pokemon?

What about non-anthropomorphic cartoon animals that are intelligent enough to consent, such as those in My Little Pony?

And if attraction to animals is zoophilia, is attraction to animal-identifying biological humans? What about when they also LOOK like animals?

Again, I come from the tulpamancy community, and while every member of our system is human (or mostly human,) many of the original tulpas in the community are not because yes, the tulpamancy community did have significant influence from the Brony fandom early on.

I've also been talking about VR a lot lately, and there's a beauty in a world where you can look to others how you internally identify. For a lot of tulpas and others in alterhuman communities, the future could allow us to interact with people we know in forms that very closely resemble our mind forms.

So to answer your question of why I defend zoophiles... it's because I want to create a world where a pony tulpa can feel safe booting up VRChat in their pony body and can live out whatever life they want with whoever they want in that world. And yes, that may end up including romantic or even sexual relationships. And I don't think they or their partner(s), as two consenting physically-human-bodied adults, should be stigmatized for this.

As we move into an increasingly virtual world, our traditional conceptions of morality and humanity itself are going to be challenged in ways we've never experienced before.

And while bestiality is wrong and no one should harm a defenseless animal that can't consent (again, if you know of this happening, report it to the police immediately), if we take a position where non-harmful acts like drawings and written works are immoral, or even just the very thought itself, then the next step is to say that being romantically or sexually engaged with someone with an animal avatar must be equally immoral.

And that stance hurts a significant part of our communities.

We cannot afford to adopt a moral standard that cannot distinguish between someone who abuses biological animals that can't consent and someone who is in a consensual relationship with a being who is mentally human but both identifies and looks like an animal.

#ask box #alterhuman #otherkin #nonhuman #therian #tulpa #tulpas #syscourse #rad inclus #plural #radqueer #plurality #radical inclusion #radical inclusivity

[lemonhemlock]

Unless I have some specific persons blocked, I don't think I've seen anyone outright saying Helaemond shippers are this and that in the tag recently, but there have certainly been some people who've been posting stuff that is bound to get some reactions from the shippers. For example, making posts disproving theory that Helaena's children could be Aemond's while implying how those who believe in it are "eager to argue in favor of minors sleeping of each other" (yeah, nice way to say you are a degenerate and immoral for believing that about two underage persons), writing essays against people who allegedly only want Helaena to be an object of her brothers' desire (but mainly Aemond's as the user in this case likes Helaegon) and don't care about her character at all - meanwhile the very same person said on Twitter Helaena would a hoe if her children are not Aegon's. So it's obviously anti bullshit dressed as fake concern over a character and storyline. It's the whole misogynistic "women should be faithful and loyal to their cheating husbands no matter what" and "Helaegon's marriage sanctity should be respected at all costs" take all over again. All of this plus the bizarre accusations of self-inserting into Helaena. It's just very tiring. I get having different takes and debating theories with fellow users, but some people actually have a history of being antis as far as this ship is concerned and for some reasons are obviously posting in the tag to piss people off. Like it's been said before, you and others were asked to tag your posts using the anti tag for less and did so yet when they are called out they are acting like victims.

I hear you & I'm going start this answer with a general assessment that applies to shipping as a whole, not just this one ship in particular. As in, not everything has to be super binary all the time. There could be aspects of a dynamic that you like, there could be others you don't? But, it's like even highlighting a thing that could prove to be questionable relegates you to the anti tag, when it could very well just be an aspect tabled for discussion. Debates on a ship, like any topic, can go beyond this pro- or anti- dichotomy. You don't HAVE to pick a side all the time.

That being said, with helaemond, I feel like we've been over all those talking points already - paternity, (in)fidelity, Aemond's sense of duty, the show's framing, the fact that we're not pressed if it's not confirmed either - what else is there to say here that we haven't chewed over until it's turned to sludge? No amount of pointing out Aemond's hypocrisy or the fact that he's legally betrothed to a Baratheon girl (so breaking a vital military alliance is really not dutiful at all for him) seems to have any effect, because they're not interested in hearing it, so I don't know. I ultimately find myself agreeing with you, anon, because whatever this is, it's not a conversation carried out in good faith. It doesn't really feel like an honest and measured exchange of views, you know what I mean?

So what are we even doing here, there's not really any sliver of new disk horse for us to pour over, just some artwork posts once in a while? A couple of people posting headcanons sometimes? Come on. This ship is one of the least problematic things about Aemond's character evolution. No one is going to care about this when he carpet bombs the Riverlands.

#aemond and helaena are born canonically one year apart lol #ask #anon #helaemond #we can't keep fighting about this until the end of time

[bye-die]

Yury Khovansky's Open Letter (plz read)

__________________________________

"Without your help, they'll just kill me." (с)

__________________________________

This is an Open Letter to all media, bloggers and just people who care about my fate. My name is Yuri Khovansky, and I have been in pre-trial detention center for half a year on charges of justifying terrorism. Nine years ago, in 2012, I made an immoral and stupid joke when I performed a song for which I am now behind bars. During these nine years, I have repeatedly repented, apologized and made a charitable donation to the fund to help victims of terrorism. There is no moral justification for my action, but the statute of limitations for this offense has expired. The article on which I am accused (205.2 part 2) appeared only in 2016. It is very well known to me, to you and to the investigators of the Central Investigation Department, who keep me in pre-trial detention center, extending my arrest month after month.

I was ready to endure it and receive legal punishment for my song, but what happens to me cannot be called legality. Despite the fact that the whole country knows that I sang that song in 2012, the investigation refuses to accept evidence of this, because they understand that they will have to let me go, so they cannot allow this. As a result, instead of investigating the crime, the investigators changed the time of this action to 2018 with the help of dummy witnesses.

Four madmen testified that they witnessed my performance of this song, and the case was in 2018. Their testimony is ridiculous, but when I read them, I did not want to laugh — I wanted to cry. The court accepted this testimony — the judge was not even surprised when he read this nonsense. At the same time, all the numerous proofs of the protection that the song was performed in 2012 are being ignored. On one side of the scale there are notarized facts, on the other there are testimonies of people who do not even know what a "stream" is. All four witnesses are from St. Petersburg, which is very convenient for the St. Petersburg Central Investigation Department.

I hoped that I could argue it in court, but recently the head of the investigation group of my case came to me and, without notifying my lawyers, secretly offered me conditions:

1. I have to testify that I sang that song in 2018.

2. I have to give up my lawyers.

3. I have to accept their lawyer.

If I fulfill these conditions, they will cease to appoint endless expert examinations, they will take the case to court, where I will receive a fine and be released. If I refuse these conditions, it will be done as if I "stubbornly deny everything" and I will get a real prison sentence. I have already believed this investigator once — he promised to change the measure of restraint to house arrest, if at the very beginning I give such evidence that they need and refuse right against self-incrimination (51 article of the Russian Constitution). I told him that I no longer believed him and that I was not going to confess what I had not done.

In response, he gave me two days to think it over and said that if I refuse it, then not only me, but also my beloved woman Masha will have problems. Previously, the detectives had already threatened me to plant drugs on her if she didn't withdraw her complaint. Two days later, the investigator sent my computers for examination, although they had already been examined, and not to the Central Internal Affairs Department, but to the Federal Security Service. My lawyers still cannot get a copy of the order on the appointment of this examination, they just don't want to give it to my lawyers. The investigator also forbade the lawyers to be present with me during the investigative action — this is an unheard-of violation of my constitutional rights: people in the Kresty prison do not believe that such a thing is possible. But now I know that with such people in the investigative committee everything is possible.

I'm scared and I don't know what to do. I was afraid before while I was in a pre-trial detention center, but I have never been afraid for my loved ones on the other side of the fence. I did not think that in Russia in 2021 an investigator could openly threaten the family of the accused and demand to confess to what he did not commit. This is not the 37th year of the USSR, I thought. Now I don't know what to think anymore.

I’m asking you, no, I’m begging you — help me. Don't let them harm my family. Don't let them put something on my computer or jail me according to the testimony of false witnesses! The law should work even for those you don't like. I was not the best person when I was free, but is this a reason to justify the methods of the NKVD that are applied to me? Think of the fact that I have 4.5 million subscribers, and the Investigative Committee only needed 4 false witnesses to break my life. How many false witnesses will they need to break yours?

Every third person in my prison is imprisoned exclusively on the "testimony" of such "witnesses". It could be your husband, your brother, your son. Now it is not just my fate that is being determined, now the boundaries of permissiveness, which the investigating authorities allow themselves, are being determined. Because anyone can go to the web archive and make sure I sang that song in 2012. After all, it should not be so that the judges look at black and say that it is white. People should not be allowed to be judged not according to the law, but because of public resonance. These werewolves in uniform shouldn't be allowed to threaten our loved ones. Please help me! Without your help, they'll just kill me.

RU version: https://telegra.ph/Otkrytoe-pismo-YUriya-Hovanskogo-11-29

#russia #sankt petersburg #youtube news #the crime #russian crime #russian mafia #valdamir putin #help plz #publicity #iniquity #lawlessness

[yeahhiyellow]

I'm making this post as a response to something that went down between me and another Tumblr user yesterday.

Trigger warning: this talks about corrective rape (no graphic detail or anything) and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, especially asexuals.

I saw a post earlier today talking about how more needs to be done than just saying LGBTQ+ people are "valid" and "including" us. It said that we also need to get rid of the LGBTQ+ panic defense, pass anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment, get trans people access to healthcare, stop the murders of black trans women, marriage equality, allowing trans kids to go by the names they prefer, and banning corrective rape. I was about to like and reblog the post (it is ABSOLUTELY true) when I saw other people's reblogs.

One person reblogged it, asking what "corrective rape" was, to which the person who wrote the post replied, and I quote, "lesbians who are raped by men in order to 'turn them' straight. i believe this term can also be used for gay men who are raped by women, but it is far less common." Alright, there's no real problem that jumps out immediately here. However, when another Tumblr user reblogged the post mentioning that asexuals also faced corrective rape but didn't want to talk about it since there's so much acephobia (and I do admit, this person was focusing a bit too much on themselves, but still that's no excuse), the original person responded back, and I quote, again, "hey the term 'corrective rape' was literally invented by and for lesbians..." and proceeded to accuse the other person of derailing the conversation, being morally wrong, and playing the victim.

Angry that anyone would ever be so ignorant, I responded with:

(I didn't realize at this point that the person who made the first post was the same one who replied with the anti-asexual comments.)

The first issue with the poster's comments is the obvious hypocrisy. This person is saying that the term "corrective rape" can be used about lesbian women and gay men, but when asexuals get involved, all of a sudden it's only supposed to be used for lesbians. What about gay men, then? The only logical conclusions would be that the term was only made for lesbians and that the original poster is wrongly saying they can be used for gay men as well, or that the term can be used by other marginalized groups and they are wrongly excluding asexual people. Since the term has already proven to include asexual people, it's obviously the latter. This is not even to mention that a fourth Tumblr user replied that the people who popularized the term "corrective rape" applies to asexuals too, disproving the original poster's entire point whether or not they were being hypocritical.

It's here that I'd also like to share some quotes I found online:

And:

Even the definition of "corrective rape" says that it's based on sexual orientation or gender identity (which includes asexuals):

At this point, there's no excuse for the original poster's behavior, however, unfortunately I cannot show this to them because they have blocked me. They also replied to my initial responses, however I can't even read what they said aside from what I can see in my notifications because they blocked me. (What I can see from the text in my notifications is, "i didn't get mad at them, y'all don't know what 'mad' is. what i said, if ANY OF YOU could read, was that they were...") I'm only 15 years old, and even I can recognize this behavior as not only childish, but immoral.

(Note: I am chosing not to name individuals because I don't want anyone to harass them. While certain people involved in this are definitely in the wrong, no one gave me permission to put their accounts out, and I don't want anyone to harass them in response to their remarks.)

Now, I can't know this for sure since they blocked me, but what I anticipate they said was that the person who brought up asexuals was derailing the conversation (and whether or not this was their reply, I do know they said this in one of their previous posts, as mentioned above). Still, the original post was about the ENTIRE LGBTQ+ community - which includes asexuals - and even the replies were about corrective rape, which happens to asexuals as well, as I've already proved. There is no doubt that this person was purposely excluding asexuals, even though they are absolutely affected by corrective rape and need to be included in the conversation.

Even I've seen asexual people be affected by other's acceptance of corrective rape of asexuals. A friend of mine's mom has said to their face that they need to be raped by a guy to show them that sex is enjoyable and that they aren't asexual. And this is just in my short, fifteen year life. This isn't including the countless asexual people who have been raped because of their asexuality. Discounting these people's experiences as "not corrective rape" is denying sexual assault and their actual experiences.

Now that I have all that said, it's important that I get to why I shared this, and what the root of the issue is.

When people say that "a stands for ally" or "asexuals don't need to be included in LGBTQ+ because they don't face discrimination," they are not only being ignorant, they are discounting the lives of likely millions of people. They are feeding into the lie that asexuals don't experience discrimination, and things like corrective rape against them are justified, even if that's not their intention. Being perceived as a burden (having family members and others want to "fix" asexuals, saying that there are more important issues to focus on like gay/lesbian rights over asexual rights, and many more), and not having a place to belong (not being included within the LGBTQ+ community, being perceived as "different" because asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, and more) also leads to increased risk of suicide. Are people really willing to risk people's lives to feel comfortable?

This is the exact same thing that happened (and is still happening) to lesbian, gay, and other groups within the LGBTQ+ community (and has happened to asexuals in the past too, although that is less talked about). Cishets didn't include, accept, or even treat gay and lesbian people anywhere near equally under law, and now gay, lesbian and other groups in the LGBTQ+ community are turning around and doing the same thing to asexuals (as well as nonbinary people, bisexuals, pansexuals, aromantics, the list goes on). And it costs people's health, physical and mental, and ultimately people's lives.

Either you include asexuals and protect them under law or continue to be ignorant, this time by choice, to the atrocities happening to asexual people. There is no inbetween. And if you are a member of an oppressed group and decide to take the second route from here on out, you are also a hypocrite.

Tldr; Asexuals also face corrective rape, and they need to be included in conversations about the LGBTQ+ community, even if a user on Tumblr argues against that.

#a stands for asexual #support asexuals #asexual #tw rape #rape tw #lgbtq+ #lgbt #lgbtq community #ace solidarity #ace positivity

[sometimesrosy]

Do you think the "crying wolf" that constantly happens in the 100 fandom is more because people truly don't understand the difference between bigoted motivations and other motivations, or a deliberate misdirection to keep people separate and fighting rather than working things out together?

oh. 

I think I see what you’re asking.

It’s not just The 100 fandom. This is a culture that we are seeing all over the internet and America. 

There are people who deliberately sow discord among left leaning and liberal communities. Sometimes they do this by antagonizing them. Sometimes they do this by infiltrating them. Both versions teach them fascist ideals that elevate one group of people, while denigrating others. It doesn’t matter which side of the argument you elevate and which side you denigrate. It’s a bad world view. 

I think also, when we’ve been attacked so often by awful people, we start using their tactics ourselves. Instead of striving to be BETTER than the people who hurt us, we turn around and hurt others in the same way.

So if one group of people harassed LGBT people for being “immoral” now we have LGBT turning around and harassing others for being “immoral” too, and sometimes within their own communities. Like the Terfs. Or Biphobia. 

Do I think that people in The 100 fandom are doing it on purpose in order to hurt and control other people and feel more powerful?

I think it depends on the people. I think the first harasser I had here was honestly just that disturbed and hurt and she was unable to view my perspective as valid and important because it seemed to contradict her own and she thought this meant it was invalidating her. So thus I became “immoral.” She did not have the perspective to see outside of her own concerns and recognize the validity of other people. She made my experience all about her. It was insular and self centered, but not malicious. But she had a cohort, who, as I’ve learned, actually ships exactly the abusive type of relationships I said CL was. And she did, in fact, turn on me, exactly like an abuser might on a victim. So in her case, I think she did it on purpose. Because she’s an abusive type of person. Which, imo, makes it malicious. She did it for power and control and to try to dominate me. It didn’t work, but it was horrendous and on purpose. 

You really don’t know why people are doing what they are doing. That’s why you have to take each incidence as an individual and consider their agendas and their perspectives. Where are they coming from? What do they want?

I see less malevolence now and more self centered lack of perspective. To be honest. I see a lot of low self esteem. And sometimes when people’s egos are threatened, they start to get aggressive. What do they fall back on but dogma and manipulation tactics that have always worked before. Claiming the moral high ground and entertaining people with rants and outrage gets a lot of attention. Reason is boring and doesn’t get the notes. 

Back to the culture of tumblr and the internet and the fascists though. If you are OUTRAGED at the awful “THOSE PEOPLE” who are opposed to YOU as the correct and good RIGHT PEOPLE and you throw in all the right highly emotional trigger words to rile them up and get them scared and offended…. then you don’t actually need to argue your point or back it up. You just need to get people shouting along with you at HOW AWFUL THOSE PEOPLE ARE FOR NOT THINKING LIKE US THE RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD LETS WAVE OUR FLAGS AND MARCH FOR JUSTICE… even though it was never about justice at all and very often the moral outrage of it was exaggerated for the argument. 

If you have to attack people’s character and call them racists or white feminists or lesbophobes or pedophiles or abuse apologists or whatever– generally just for shipping or stanning something wrong or interpreting a story wrong, not for, like, making laws against people or whatever, it’s generally a sign that you are UNABLE to defend your argument. You’ve lost the debate.

Unfortunately, it never was a debate. It was a rallying cry for people to be OUTRAGED AND RIGHTEOUS. And you just don’t have to be right for that, you just have to be convincing and angry and witty and have someone to argue against.

I do find it interesting that when people lost the CL targets to argue against, they started turning on people within the fandom. Is it REALLY because they are so racist? Or is it because they are addicted to drama and needed to have an opponent, because otherwise there wasn’t anyone to be outraged at? 

As if we don’t have a president who actually IS all those things that people who interpret The 100 differently have been accused of being. As if we don’t have something to actually be outraged about. And real evil to fight.

I think they know the difference. I think they are unable to stop themselves because they aren’t doing it because the other people are WRONG. They are doing it because they are insecure and they need to feel RIGHT. This is how they know how to feel RIGHT. Not learn how to believe in themselves and trust in themselves, but to belittle other people to make themselves feel bigger.

#the 100 fandom #critical thinking #social media #antagonism #politics #bullying #fandom wank