I don’t want to hear about your bathroom habits. I will not teach you how to code. Posts marked sfw ARE VERY MUCH NOT. If you support the convoy in Ottawa then I hate you. I delete more personal information every time someone asks for some. Re:DNIs if it’s that important then block me yourself. 骄傲的腐女 (Proud funü).
Five still images of orange kittens, from top to bottom: the mother looking up with two of her kittens looking down and a third partially covered by a blanket, a single kitten holds out its murder mittens, two kittens sleeping curled up around each other, a kitten looks up from its mother’s paws, a kitten doing a big stretch. From here.
I fixed my transcription software! And the WGA meeting with the AMPTP went poorly, so here are screenshots of this fantastic post made by @fans4wga, reproduced under the cut because the OP was a coward.
The research google sheet I shared earlier, they also have a whole website that sums a lot of things up and clarifies words and definitions that get handled wrong in recent fandom discourses.
And honestly this resonates with me so much: “
Since at least 2015 in Anglophone fandom, anti-trans groups began spreading disinformation about these topics, and unfortunately, fan spaces have never fully recovered. Instead, they are riddled with xenophobia, misogyny, racism, misinformation, and miscommunication.
“
Because do people even remember that the whole ‘fetishizing’ discourse was started by T E R F s and radf*ms, comparing BL with lesbian pr.on made for men, still under the assumption that BL is just 100% made by and for cishet women (which is now clarified is not the case and never really was)? It’s not even that long ago when that first popped up, but 2015-ish sounds about right.
Westerners be normal about Asian culture challenge.
Honestly, it’s not a crime to want to consume content just because it has romantic/sexual relationships between two men. Yes, even if you’re female or afab. For some reason this is a wild take, but it’s one I stand by firmly. You don’t need to defend your tastes for anyone. Questions like “would you still like this ship if it were straight”, or “would you still read this manga if it were about two girls instead” are purposefully trying to bait you.
At the most base level, I guess you could say, girls and women who are straight enjoy content featuring two or more characters of the sex they personally find attractive. Rather than read a story about a straight couple, only one of whom they might find attractive, it’s more fun to read about two.
Many straight men enjoy lesbian porn (if, for argument’s sake, we are reducing yaoi/BL to *just* the erotic elements, though there is more to it than that). Sometimes it’s hot to see two members of the sex you’re attracted to getting it on, rather than just one.
This is of course, ignoring that many fujin are neither cis women, nor straight. As well as that many enjoy yaoi for story and relationship and visual elements, oftentimes the erotic scenes are a “bonus”. It’s like fanfic- some fics are pure smut, some have none, and some have a bit of both for everyone.
“But why do fujin HAVE to read stories about mlm! Why dont they just read het stories?”
Is a non-binary person only allowed to read stories/erotica with non-binary characters? Are asexuals not allowed to read erotica at all? Is a trans person not allowed to read a story with an all cis cast? Some lesbians enjoy yaoi. Is their sexuality no longer valid?
Again, why do these people need to explain their preferences to you? Why do you care so much about what kind of fiction, especially what kind of erotic fiction, they like? It’s creepy and pervasive. Policing what people are and aren’t allowed to find “hot” or “interesting”. As long as fujin aren’t acting inappropriately towards real life mlm (which, yes, sometimes a VERY SMALL portion of them can do, but it’s mostly younger ones who need educating/aren’t mature enough to understand their actions), then, again, why does it matter so much to you what they enjoy?
“But what about fetishizers!” They’re fetishizers. Call them that. Don’t use the ~*spooky Asian word*~ when you don’t even know what it means. There’s a reason gay Asian men overall prefer to interact with straight Asian girls over gay Westerners.
Screenshot from mastodon of two posts, the first reading, “I think it’s important to repeat: you don’t “have something to hide” when you put blinds on your windows or close the door when you’re on the can or wear clothes. Privacy isn’t about having something to hide. It’s not about keeping secrets. It’s about you being the person who chooses what you reveal about yourself, and when, and to who, and the other word we have for that is “dignity”. Your inherent dignity, as a human being. Your privacy is the agency you have over your dignity.”
The second reads, “Everyone who’s ever said “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is somebody trying to bully you into giving them the power to strip you of your dignity at a moment’s notice. On a whim, whenever it’s convenient for them. That’s the fight. It’s not about privacy, it’s not about secrets, and it never was. It’s about about power.”
Anyways, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: honey, do you think I lock the bathroom door because shitting is against the law?
Concern over declining populations of bees and other pollinators has sparked interest in native plant landscaping in recent years, with many homeowners opting to tear out their turf grass lawns in favor of more diverse plantings. But those efforts occasionally run afoul of local ordinances that either require grass lawns or mandate that plants be kept below a certain height.
…
And in 2020, the city of Falcon Heights banned all front yard gardens after a resident attempted to plant vegetables.
The new language requires cities to allow homeowners to install and maintain a “managed natural landscape,” which it defines as “a planned, intentional, and maintained planting of native or nonnative grasses, wildflowers, forbs, ferns, shrubs, or trees.”
The law explicitly states that “turf-grass lawns left unattended” are excluded from the definition of a “managed natural landscape,” which means mowing-averse homeowners will not be able to simply let their grass grow and declare it a natural garden.
But the legislation doesn’t say anything about homeowners’ associations, according to Julie Liew of the League of Minnesota Cities, so HOAs can still mandate the use of turf grass lawns. The Community Associations Institute, a trade group for HOAs and similar organizations, estimates there are more than 7,500 such organizations in Minnesota overseeing about 1.5 million residents.
Traditional turf grass lawns are effectively biological deserts. They’re devoid of the diversity of plant life that’s needed to support healthy native pollinator populations, and frequent mowing ensures that local plant life never gains a foothold.
Native plantings “can offer the kind of habitat and nutrients to sustain thousands of insect species, and many of those in turn will be the food for birds and amphibians,” as St. Paul beekeeper and entomologist Margot Monson wrote in support of the new law.”
Defamation lawsuits in UK are heavily weighted in *favor* of the plaintiff. You have to have a pretty weak case to lose over there. If there wasn’t a rabbid, inescapable social media campaign against Amber Heard, he would have lost in America too.
Screenshot of tumblr tags reading, “#also iirc #the ruling in the US #in much more convoluted terms #was that he *did* abuse her #but her talking about it was too detrimental to him so she’s not allowed to do that #so the ruling wasn’t even that he was innocent #since that was never what the trial was about #HE brought HER to court because she said in her book that she had been a victim of abuse #no names mentioned #and depp lost in the UK because he basically had to admit that he had abused her in order to make the link between him and what she wrote #the smear campaign against Heard was so insane it actually had so many ppl thinking that she was the one suing”
Screenshot of a post where OP says, “Every time I rewatch breaking bad I’m completely STUNNED by how fast Walt resorts to cooking meth to pay his medical bills. He doesn’t try literally anything else before resorting to meth. He finds out he has cancer and then immediately contacts the first meth dealer he can find and is like ‘let’s be partners.’ Like I cannot emphasize enough that cooking meth was Walter White’s FIRST resort, not his last. His old college friends even offer him an executive position at an immensely successful business he helped found so the health insurance would cover most of it and his pay would more than cover the rest, and he turns it down because he doesn’t want ‘handouts.’ The story of breaking bad is about Walters descent into immorality and depravity but he really fucking hurtles off the diving board at the first chance he got and ignored the people throwing him life preserves.”
And then, for some fucking reason, someone replies, “This is why I don’t watch mainstream television. The whole pre, pro, and post production crew all knew they were profiting off of glorifying meth usage to millions of impressionable viewers and they did it with glee.” If you’re poor, don’t be around n0thingiscool when she needs to pee.
I honestly think that the lack of non-sexual nudity in public spaces has done horrific damage to American society.
We deeply struggle to understand the natural diversity of bodies because we only see naked bodies in a sexual context. We are taught that seeing nudity is somehow inherently harmful, especially to children. We struggle to differentiate between sexually suggestive and sexually explicit material.
It fucks up the way people think about and talk about sex ed. It fucks up the way people think about and talk about breast feeding. It fucks up the way people think about and talk about queer folks. It feeds into fatphobia and ableism and is all rooted in this deeply harmful puritanism.
Like, I need people to understand that seeing a bare titty in public is not going to hurt a child. Seeing a man in a banana hammock isn’t inherently traumatizing. I would argue, in fact, that adults treating those things as dangerous and gross and scary is going to do way more damage to a kid’s psychology than seeing the nudity in the first place.
“Wanting to expose myself to children isn’t the problem, its you being upset that I wanna expose myself to children that’s the problem”
See, this is what I’m talking about. Nothing I said in this post is about *doing* anything *to* children, and the fact that you cannot imagine a scenario where a person might be unclothed that doesn’t directly involving harming children isn’t healthy.
This post is about breast feeding. It’s about nude beaches. It’s about clothing optional saunas and onsens. It’s about the changing room at the gym. Settings in which some *non-sexual* nudity can and do exist.
This post isn’t about “oh wow, I sure do want to be naked around kids for nefarious and predatory reasons.” It’s about how our culture’s insistence that ALL nudity, regardless of context and setting, MUST be sexual and MUST be predatory is divorced from reality and leads to unhealthy mindsets surrounding our bodies and the bodies of others.
You literally mentioned it not being harmful to kids you fucking retarded pedo
Yes there exists settings where nudity is non-sexualized, most people understand this, however mentioning children makes it incredibly suspicious.
Who the hell thinks of children in the context of nude beaches, gym changing rooms or saunas?
See, but it’s not suspicious. One of the main pearl-clutching arguments about any nudity or even just less conservative clothing is the “think of the children!” fear mongering. That seeing a person breast feeding a baby in public or seeing a man in a thong is somehow inherently traumatizing. I’m literally just referencing and responding to the most common puritan argument against non-sexual nudity.
In countries that have them, children can go to saunas. Children can go to onsens. Children can use the changing room at public pools and gyms. Most nude beaches around the world don’t have any kind of age requirement. Because in these places, there is an understanding that these are not sexual settings, and trying to have sex in those places would be seen as deeply, deeply inappropriate.
Again, the idea that nudity of any kind is only appropriate for adults is leaning on the assumption that nudity is somehow inherently sexual and harmful to children. (Which feeds into so many toxic and harmful mindsets. That people wearing skimpy clothing are ‘asking for’ sexual attention, that only people who are 'sexy’ should wear the kind of clothing that shows skin.) It creates a culture of shame and secrecy about all aspects of your body, which really fucks with our sex ed and body image. It negatively affects people’s willingness and ability to care for their loved ones as they age. Read through the tags on this post, and do so without the assumption that anyone who isn’t a pearl clutching puritan is a fucking sex criminal.
You had me until you decided to say that having men in thongs around children is okay.
Explain to me why you think children being in the same area as someone wearing a particular style of swimsuit (one that still completely convers the genitals even) is “not ok”?
Ah, ok, by that logic, it’s okay to shove my ass in a kid’s face, because it’s “not sexual”, right?
Define “shoving your ass into their face.”
Do you mean- physically touching a child’s face with *their ass cheeks*? Because no, that’s not ok.
Do you mean - being visible and in the same general area while wearing a swimsuit? Because then yes, that’s OK. It’s in fact no different than a woman wearing a bikini within the potential sight of a child. *seeing* another person, even if that person is wearing fewer clothes than you expect, is not *inherently* harmful.
“people can wear various clothes and it’s not a bad thing”
Oh so i can but my bare ass directly in the face of a child?????
Dude, you’re the problem. Healthy growth involves knowing what growth looks like. Being able to look at a regular human body in any state of dress and going “oh so that’s what I’ll look like” is very very good for development.
You’re doing the equivalent of weirdos sexualizing shoulders.
You know if they don’t get that out in reality where they’re actually going to get it? Porn.
Up until like the 1950s kids were subjected to nudity in various locations with little to no issues. People were breastfeeding in church and kids would go to public bath houses or see their neighbors washing themselves outside. They all lived. Kids will survive a thong from across the street. You on the other hand… Jury is out.
Absolutely wild how people react to something like “nudity is not inherently sexual because you’re not having sex every time you take your clothes off, including in front of children” and go “So I can have sex with children” like…are you fucking reading this post?
Are you gonna accuse the person giving kids cookies of also giving them heroin? Why not, when sugar and heroin are both chemicals that make people happy?
the idea that a genuinely kind and liberated world includes women CEOs, transgender drone pilots, disabled war profiteers, black politicians rather than class racial queer etc solidarity.
Leadership is a highly subjective idea. At its core, it is a necessity- experience, education, expertise, and initiative all are qualities that cannot be communicated on a hereditary or biological basis. At some point, certain parties must lead.
And of course, there are those who do not desire the responsibility to organize, orchestrate, and coordinate- some are innately better than others at these tasks.
But leadership as a perpetual entitlement to power, yes, is abhorrent and itself inimical to the ideal implicit in what it means to lead- by example, shouldering more responsibility and ultimately expecting less than those who follow. Leadership is its own reward in having the power to influence another’s life for the better.
Leadership is and must be an expirable distinction and must be surrendered or withdrawn when no longer appropriate in the context.
A distinction that I have found very useful is between leadership and facilitation/coordinator.
A protest or a food kitchen or a blockade or a festival all work better if there are some people coordinating and facilitating: making sure that every necessary thing is being done and that all the other participants have the tools they need and access to information on how to do the thing.
Crucially, facilitation and coordination are services. Your main task as a facilitator is to support everyone else, to make sure everyone else is free to do the thing they set out to do. A facilitator doesn’t give orders or hand out tasks, they ask people what they need, offer solutions for problems, improves communication between people doing different tasks, etc.
When a strategy decision needs to be made, a facilitator’s task isn’t to make it, but to support the rest in making it. The best way to do that is to try to not be invested in a specific outcome yourself. So a good facilitator actually has less of a say in the decision than everyone else.
Concentrating a lot of knowledge, network and access in one place means facilitators can still have too much power, so facilitation is also necessarily a temporary task. And as long as we live surrounded by an authoritarian society that has shaped all of us since birth, we’ll need to regularly check in and ask “are we all still treating facilitation as a service position? Have we not accidentally created a leader by another name?”
Theme
