Install this theme

myrandaroyces:

i want pacific rim to be our generations star wars and by that i mean i want six trillion expanded universe novels about everybody that appeared on screen i want graphic novel spin offs and in thirty years i want to be able to complain about the remake

GYPSY DANGER PUNCHED FIRST

asks:
What do you (collectively) think of Anita Sarkeesian? Either in general, or in the specific way she conducts herself via FeministFrequency etc.

permutationofninjas:

Our general feelings about Sarkeesian are pretty negative.  There are really three major aspects to her (and our resulting assessments), though of course they all overlap to a degree.  Roughly speaking, we can divide things into a) her general behavior, b) her content, and c) her as a person.

The last is pretty simple: from what (albeit relatively little) we’ve seen of her she’s a self-righteous, sanctimonious git.  Definitely not the kind of person we’d like to chat with over coffee, let alone play video games with or really interact with at all in any significant fashion.  We’re mentioning this first because it’s the least important: it’s a judgement based on relatively little information all from the public sphere; she might well be a perfectly nice and decent person away from the cameras.  We kinda doubt it.

The second is her content.  Sarkeesian pretty much hits the intersection of feminism’s issues with academic honesty and general credibility, then adds an almost stunning lack of understanding as to how the gaming industry functions.  We’ve seen a half-dozen commentators demolish her videos without so much as slowing down or breaking a sweat, though we’d suggest you hunt some of them down and make up your own mind.

A couple of ongoing issues are worth mentioning specifically.  Reiterating, despite her supposed “expertise” on gaming, Sarkeesian does not have a particularly developed understanding of how the gaming industry functions.  This is likely a result of the fact that she’s actually never been employed in it, or (as far as we can tell) had any significant interaction with it on a business level.  This leads to things like her spending several minutes attacking the decision to rebrand Dinosaur Planet as a Star Fox title after a publisher left and dropped it with Nintendo (downgrading the female protagonist to sidekick) in apparent ignorance of how licensing works and why a studio might have an incentive to use a well-known character.  Incidentally, she didn’t even get that right: Star Fox replaced a completely different character than the original protagonist. Krysta was originally intended to play a far greater role than she did, but became a casualty of time constraints.

Despite using the word “research” something like a dozen times (disclaimer, we honestly don’t remember, but it was a lot) in her Kickstarter, she’s already racked up a pretty impressive list of mistakes.  Besides the aforementioned Star Fox case, she apparently forgot to play Bayonetta before reviewing it, regularly forgets that games with gender-neutral protagonists have female options, and on a number of occasions has targeted examples that are actually largely subversions of the tropes she’s claiming them to be.  Off the top of our heads, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Dollhouse, and Y: The Last Man all run into this one; Clementine was designed specifically as a subversion to the trope Sarkeesian labels her as (something acknowledged in the movie), Dollhouse explicitly draws the exact same parallels she happily “uncovers” and Y: The Last Man’s man-hating feminists were designed specifically to contrast with a far more moderate (and presented as justified) feminist group in the series.

Beyond the simple factual errors, there’s the simple shoddy rhetoric.  In her “Damsel in Distress” video, the vast majority of the games she cites are over a decade old (yes, even Star Fox), with many twice that age.  Given the speed with which video games evolve, that’s about as sensible as citing “Leave it to Beaver” when discussing racial equality in television.  (In all fairness, she does somewhat remedy this in later installments.)  While the damsel in distress does still pop up on occasion, it’s become increasingly rare over the last decade and a substantial portion of the time is subverted in one or more ways.  When played straight, the vast majority of the time it’s in either a legacy series, or a “retro” game where it’s being specifically evoked as a trope of the era.

Overall, most of her ire is directed at the Mario and Zelda series (this is even more dramatic when we ditch Star Fox from the lineup) without any mention of the fact that both series originate from the same company, and in fact were created by the exact same person.  For all we know, Miyamoto just had a thing for kidnapped women; we can’t judge a genre, let alone an industry, by the work of a single creator.  Even when dealing with the two franchises she primarily targeted, she wasn’t particularly honest: both are legacy titles (yes, in the main SMB series Peach is always gonna fucking get kidnapped, because that’s how it’s been since the 80s and it’s iconic), and even within them there’s a huge range of variation.  Peach got her own game and has been an equal character in pretty much every spinoff game so far, such as Super Smash Brothers, Mario Kart and so on.  As for her analysis of Zelda, well, let’s just say she completely ignores several games within the series.

Despite her “impressive” academic credentials, she spends effectively no time actually addressing the potential causes for the prevalence of the damsel in distress.  Her videos are largely a laundry list of cherry-picked examples (some of which are even accurate) largely devoid of analysis.  Nowhere is it mentioned, for example, that the attractiveness of “damsel” plots in early gaming is likely in part a result of the fact that it’s one of a tiny handful of plots that can be set up in ten seconds or less.  Likewise, nowhere is it pointed out that the “damsel” plot itself is drawn from older stories, and is a traditional cultural narrative played out in fairy tales and pretty much every other form.  Certainly, there’s no mention of how the dynamics of the gaming industry at the time interacted with Japanese culture, which considering her choice of targets is a massive (and indeed arguably racist) oversight.

Oddly enough, what little analysis she does do flies directly in the face of her own Master’s thesis.  The becomes less of a surprise, though, when we consider that Sarkeesian is an activist, not a media critic. Her goal was not to examine the evidence and make a case, or to identify overall trends, it was to find material that would validate her preexisting conclusions.  In some places (debate, perhaps an opinion piece) this might be okay, but less so when portraying herself as an authority on video games.

Basically, from a purely objective perspective her videos aren’t very good.  They completely ignore contradictory evidence, even evidence that should have been clearly obvious to her.  The phrase of the day is “confirmation bias”: she searched long and wide to find a handful of anecdotes that supported her position, then milked them for all they’re worth. While at least she doesn’t claim to be a scientist, that seems pretty damn wrong even for someone claiming to be an expert on…well, whatever exactly it is she’s claiming to be an expert on.  As far as credibility goes, she’s somewhere between an F- and a Z.

Finally, we come to her general behavior.  This can be seen in a few separate cases, but most easily in the events surrounding her Kickstarter campaign.  Her current (fame? notoriety?) came primarily as a result of the “backlash” she received from the initial “Tropes vs. Women” announcement.  The issue with this is that, from a somewhat removed perspective, most of the backlash seems to have been generated quite on purpose.  Indeed, as far as we can tell she purposely provoked 4chan (among other entities) for the sole purpose of then playing the victim for fun and, in this case, a pretty sizable profit.  It’s sort of like taunting a doberman, trying to act all innocent when it decides to chase you a bit, and then having the unmitigated gall to try and sue the owner.

She rounded this up by disabling Youtube comments on everything but the kickstarter video, where she disabled moderation (previously present on all of her videos).  In other words, she conveniently directed all the irritation at anything she’d done recently onto the Kickstarter video, then made sure it would be as visible as possible.

To be clear, none of this justifies the more extreme actions of 4chan et. al, nor does it make them appropriate or even remotely acceptable.  What they were, however, were predictable.  4chan’s actions when irritated may not be reasonable, justifiable, or acceptable by any rational standard, but everyone on the internet is also fully aware of that.  It’s practically rule 1 of the internet: don’t fucking poke 4chan, bad things will happen.  Thus, either she knew precisely what was going to happen (in which case, even if she can’t be held directly responsible, she sure as hell doesn’t get to act surprised, outraged, scandalized or anything similar) or she didn’t (in which case she forfeits all credibility as an expert on new media).

One thing’s for certain: Sarkeesian is very good at PR.  Most people, however, would consider her methodology to be somewhere between “self-centered”, “dishonest”, and “bald-faced lying”.  She catapulted herself into the public eye by purposely antagonizing a group known to be full of assholes, then playing the victim when they (unsurprisingly) threw some shit her way.  She manufactured controversy and sexism, then played the victim, for money.  In doing so, she’s managed to completely appropriate many of the issues faced by women who are actually involved in the game industry.  Indeed, one particularly poignant criticism of her behavior was written by a female game designer, though unfortunately we don’t have it on hand.

Another key point is pretty simple: nothing changed.  She’s making the exact same videos she did before, despite taking home over $100,000 from the Kickstarter.  The production values haven’t increased, no additional expenses seem to have popped up, so where did the money go?  While everyone who donated to that Kickstarter was perfectly welcome to do so, the idea of her being given that much money to do basically what she already did (which was questionable to begin with) a bit galling, especially now that she’s catapulted herself into “expert” territory based solely on the fact that she poked 4chan with a stick and got bitten.  This isn’t helped by her scheduling: despite the fact that she’s now being paid quite handsomely to produces the same old videos as before, her progress has been incredibly slow.  Of course, that may have had something to do with her taking a sizable amount of time off to exploit her new-found fame.

Last of all, there’s the simple irony that she has milked her status as a white, conventionally attractive young woman for every cent it’s worth.  Every aspect of her presentation is precisely calculated to play into socially-accepted stereotypes of femininity and attractiveness, those same standards that by all rights she should decry.  Naturally, some would argue that she’s consciously using her privileged status to benefit others.  While there are certainly cases of people doing so, hers does not seem one of them: besides her obvious focus on self-promotion and personal gain, it’s possible to advocate from a privileged position without simultaneously working specifically to emphasize that same exact position.

Putting it all togetherAnita Sarkeesian is objectionable on a whole series of levels, from the personal to the professional.  While she does have her occasional good points, her scholarship is beyond shoddy and her methods dishonest and self-serving.  Do. Not. Want.

isaidfuckyouandyoureyebrows:

I may have come up with the best name ever.

You’ll note that “Meg Ryan” also fits in there.

isaidfuckyouandyoureyebrows:

I may have come up with the best name ever.

You’ll note that “Meg Ryan” also fits in there.

disneyvillainsforjustice:

demisnowflake:

time-traveling-akemi:

veryangrytransguy:

mr-moon-the-cisphobic-panda:

Chihiro’s sick as fuck of ya’ll in this tag calling her a boy. Learn some goddamn manners.




(( NO LOOK HERES THE THING
SHE WANTED TO BE A GIRL
SO FEMALE PRONOUNS OK
THATS MISGNEDERING
YOU GOT THE SEX RIGHT BUT THE GENDER NO



Speaking of misgendering…
~Cruella

Tumblr seems to have missed the parts where:

-Chihiro only started posing as a girl because he was bullied for not conforming to male gender roles (much like how a trans person might feel forced to pose as their biological rather than desired gender to avoid persecution)

-Chihiro makes an effort to become more “manly” by lifting weights

-Chihiro is grouped with the boys rather than the girls in the school life minigame

He’s basically an FtM transgender who was born male, as weird as that sounds. There are hints that he’s gay (mostly in how he talks to you in the trip ticket scenes,) but he wants to be a girl as much as any FtM transgender wants to be one. 

Seriously, did any of the “CHIHIRO IS TRANS” people actually play the game or even watch the anime? Or do they just think that misgendering is okay when it’s done to a cis person?

disneyvillainsforjustice:

demisnowflake:

time-traveling-akemi:

veryangrytransguy:

mr-moon-the-cisphobic-panda:

Chihiro’s sick as fuck of ya’ll in this tag calling her a boy. Learn some goddamn manners.

hmm yes but is this just a bad translation of saying 'i'm trans'?

nope. also evident in the original japanese game

(( NO LOOK HERES THE THING

SHE WANTED TO BE A GIRL

SO FEMALE PRONOUNS OK

THATS MISGNEDERING

YOU GOT THE SEX RIGHT BUT THE GENDER NO

image

Speaking of misgendering…

~Cruella

Tumblr seems to have missed the parts where:

-Chihiro only started posing as a girl because he was bullied for not conforming to male gender roles (much like how a trans person might feel forced to pose as their biological rather than desired gender to avoid persecution)

-Chihiro makes an effort to become more “manly” by lifting weights

-Chihiro is grouped with the boys rather than the girls in the school life minigame

He’s basically an FtM transgender who was born male, as weird as that sounds. There are hints that he’s gay (mostly in how he talks to you in the trip ticket scenes,) but he wants to be a girl as much as any FtM transgender wants to be one. 

Seriously, did any of the “CHIHIRO IS TRANS” people actually play the game or even watch the anime? Or do they just think that misgendering is okay when it’s done to a cis person?

sandracl13:

indigoneversleeps:

crazyfilipino:

Godspeed Florida

reblogging for the excellent gif usage.

i don’t ask for much

ashleyriott:

but i’d really like to see more attack on titan please.

pls.

i’m always so happy when i find something that appeals to the masses in its amazingness because then i don’t have to watch it alone & in secret.

IIRC Attack on Titan is one of those shows that’s in Haruhi limbo- ie “we don’t have enough material from the original work to make another season of anime.”

Thankfully, unlike Haruhi, the writer of Attack on Titan hasn’t come down with a sudden case of writer’s block, so we should see another AoT season Soon(TM)

cannotunsee:

DC versus Marvel

cannotunsee:

DC versus Marvel

whimmy-bam:

WELCOME TO TUMBLR

WHERE PEOPLE HATE WHITE PEOPLE, AND BLACK PEOPLE, AND BROWN PEOPLE, AND HET PEOPLE, AND GAY PEOPLE, AND TRANS PEOPLE, AND CIS PEOPLE, AND BASICALLY EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD

THERE IS NO ONE THAT CAN ESCAPE FROM THE HATRED OF THIS WEB COMMUNITY BECAUSE IF YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY A BIGOT WILL ATTACK YOU AND IF YOU ARE PRIVILEGED AN SJW WILL ATTACK YOU

image

ENJOY YOUR STAY YOU PIECE OF SHIT

faisdm:

eridaniskawwaii:

curlycurvynotquitestraight:

stickyhunter:

kyapii:

ging-ler:

le-frozenpocalypse-center:

jeans0924:

Elsa with no make up

What………………………………………………………….

I THINK SHE WOULD STILL HAVE EYELASHES AND BLUE EYES

and her eyelids


Here tumblr, have a thing VuV

laughing too hard

they just fucking erased her iris im laughing so hard rn.

Didn’t you guys know? we blue eyed people paint our irises onto our eyeballs.

WHAT THE FUCK, WHY ARE YOU TELLING THEM OUR SECRETS

faisdm:

eridaniskawwaii:

curlycurvynotquitestraight:

stickyhunter:

kyapii:

ging-ler:

le-frozenpocalypse-center:

jeans0924:

Elsa with no make up

What………………………………………………………….

I THINK SHE WOULD STILL HAVE EYELASHES AND BLUE EYES

and her eyelids

Here tumblr, have a thing VuV

laughing too hard

they just fucking erased her iris im laughing so hard rn.

Didn’t you guys know? we blue eyed people paint our irises onto our eyeballs.

WHAT THE FUCK, WHY ARE YOU TELLING THEM OUR SECRETS

assholeofday:

James Taranto, Asshole of the Day for February 11, 2014
by TeaPartyCat (Follow @TeaPartyCat)
No means no. It’s really that simple. Other things that mean no:
Being passed out and saying nothing means no.
Not being old enough to consent also means no.
And yet there are some people who refuse to let this sink in. They keep trying to parse and what-if and victim blame to find reasons to excuse the absence of consent. Case in point— Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto writes that drunk college girls are equally guilty of sexual assault when they get raped. Yes, he really said this, and yes, the Wall Street Journal really published this:

In his February 10 WSJ column, Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking (emphasis added):

What is called the problem of “sexual assault” on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. 
[…]
If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but herdiminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.
As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt … In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

While it is true that reckless alcohol consumption can play a role in encouraging damaging behavior, and that male and female college students (particularly underage students) could probably benefit from learning to moderate their drinking for a variety of reasons, Taranto’s accusation that women who drink — and then are forced to have sex against their will — are not only equally at fault for their assault but are guilty of an equivalent crime takes victim blaming to a new and dangerous low.

Just because two people are drunk does not mean that consent no longer matters. No from a drunk person still means no. And no answer from a passed out person still means no.
And how far is Taranto willing to take this logic? Because if he thinks that the woman is an equal party in her own rape when drunk, then what other crimes will he also excuse when people are drunk?
If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy rapes him, is he an accomplice to his own rape?
If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy goes through his pockets and takes all his money, is he an accomplice to his own robbery?
If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy murders him, is he an accomplice to his own murder?
No?
Then why is a drunk woman an accomplice to her own rape?
She’s not. But for trying to make her an accomplice to her own rape, James Taranto is the Asshole of the Day.
It is James Taranto’s first time as Asshole of the Day, though one of many rape apologists to win.
Full story: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/wsj-editor-intoxicated-sexual-assault-victims-a/198007

He’s doing a shit job of communicating that point, but I’m pretty sure he’s not talking about cases where one intoxicated person rapes another, but cases where two intoxicated people have consensual sex, specifically the fact that these cases are frequently viewed as the man taking advantage of the woman’s drunken state, regardless of who initiated it and their relative levels of intoxication. 

If it’s rape when they’re sober it’s rape when they’re drunk, absolutely, and fuck this guy if he’s saying otherwise. But if it’s not rape if they’re sober, gender shouldn’t factor into the question of whether or not it’s rape when they’re drunk (or more typically the question of who’s raping who if both are drunk.) 

Again, I can see how one could conclude that he’s making an asshole point, but I think it’s more likely that he’s doing a shitty job of making a pretty valid point. 

assholeofday:

James Taranto, Asshole of the Day for February 11, 2014

by TeaPartyCat ()

No means no. It’s really that simple. Other things that mean no:

  • Being passed out and saying nothing means no.
  • Not being old enough to consent also means no.

And yet there are some people who refuse to let this sink in. They keep trying to parse and what-if and victim blame to find reasons to excuse the absence of consent. Case in point— Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto writes that drunk college girls are equally guilty of sexual assault when they get raped. Yes, he really said this, and yes, the Wall Street Journal really published this:

In his February 10 WSJ column, Taranto baselessly argued that men are often unfairly accused in sexual assault cases on college campuses, particularly when both men and women involved in the case were drinking (emphasis added):

What is called the problem of “sexual assault” on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike.

[…]

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but herdiminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt … In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

While it is true that reckless alcohol consumption can play a role in encouraging damaging behavior, and that male and female college students (particularly underage students) could probably benefit from learning to moderate their drinking for a variety of reasons, Taranto’s accusation that women who drink — and then are forced to have sex against their will — are not only equally at fault for their assault but are guilty of an equivalent crime takes victim blaming to a new and dangerous low.

Just because two people are drunk does not mean that consent no longer matters. No from a drunk person still means no. And no answer from a passed out person still means no.

And how far is Taranto willing to take this logic? Because if he thinks that the woman is an equal party in her own rape when drunk, then what other crimes will he also excuse when people are drunk?

If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy rapes him, is he an accomplice to his own rape?

If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy goes through his pockets and takes all his money, is he an accomplice to his own robbery?

If he gets drunk with a guy and that guy murders him, is he an accomplice to his own murder?

No?

Then why is a drunk woman an accomplice to her own rape?

She’s not. But for trying to make her an accomplice to her own rape, James Taranto is the Asshole of the Day.

It is James Taranto’s first time as Asshole of the Day, though one of many rape apologists to win.

Full story: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/wsj-editor-intoxicated-sexual-assault-victims-a/198007

He’s doing a shit job of communicating that point, but I’m pretty sure he’s not talking about cases where one intoxicated person rapes another, but cases where two intoxicated people have consensual sex, specifically the fact that these cases are frequently viewed as the man taking advantage of the woman’s drunken state, regardless of who initiated it and their relative levels of intoxication. 

If it’s rape when they’re sober it’s rape when they’re drunk, absolutely, and fuck this guy if he’s saying otherwise. But if it’s not rape if they’re sober, gender shouldn’t factor into the question of whether or not it’s rape when they’re drunk (or more typically the question of who’s raping who if both are drunk.) 

Again, I can see how one could conclude that he’s making an asshole point, but I think it’s more likely that he’s doing a shitty job of making a pretty valid point. 

asks:
What is your favourite social media site?

wilwheaton:

I like Twitter for jokes and breaking news, Google Plus for really interesting and insightful information on some specific things I like, and Tumblr for being angrily lectured by twentysomethings with no life experience.

You know what I’ve stayed my hand too long

incorrectusage:

Alright. 

You are actively hurting your own movement. 

You are tearing down the progress people have worked long and hard for in the name of who can be the most radical.

And seriously? Fuck you for doing it. 

  • [Oppressed] people don’t have to be nice to [privileged] people- they’re their oppressors! Yes, as a group, privileged people have oppressed oppressed people. As individuals? No. And when you classify ALL privileged people as “your oppressors”, you are, in essence, saying your existence would be better without them- that their very act of being alive in the world today is oppressing you. Do you not see how small of a hop, skip and a jump that is to “it would be better if these people were not alive” to “let’s kill them”? The barista who served you coffee this morning is not actively oppressing you, despite her cis/het/white/able-bodied/neurotypical/whatever-ness. Systems of power are oppressing you. Age old laws are oppressing you. Corrupt law makers are oppressing you. Every individual privileged person CANNOT be classified as “your oppressor”.
  • [Oppressed] people don’t have to be nice to [privileged] people- they’re their oppressors! Sure as a general rule no one has to be nice to anyone, whatever. You can be a huge dick to everyone around you. My personal opinion is that would make for a much sadder, angrier life, but hey I’m not your mom. But. Here’s the big, big but. When you are positing yourself as a Social Justice Advocate (be it warrior, activist, whatever) you are putting yourself as the “face” of that oppressed group(s). When you do that, you automatically become someone people will look to when they look at your oppressed group. Being a dick is only going to make people angry, solidify their views, and make them double down on the hate. Don’t feel like you can be nice today? Go to a safe space (see below), or stick to other topics, or call up a friend. Don’t take it out on other people.
  • They would have hated me anyways! What kind of cop-out bullshit is this? Really, this doesn’t even deserve a response. If someone is seeking you out to learn about whatever SJ issue, then they are, at WORST, curious if biased. 
  • It’s not my job to educate you! YOU POSITED YOURSELF AS A SJA. You are telling people what is right/not right, what is oppression, what is privilege, what is power. You are positioning yourself as a teacher- saddle up, because now you’re teaching. Make a 101 FAQ (and try not to do the shakesville 200k word + FAQ) and link that a many times as needed. If someone’s derailing by continually demanding you educate them, even after you’ve linked the 101? Block them. Don’t want to be a teacher? Then back down from the activism. Yes, it’s fucking exhausting, and dreadful, and soul sucking. That’s what social change looks like. Take a break if you need to. 
  • [Insert dreadful “joke” about privileged people here, be it a White Girl joke or ‘ewww I touched a cishet today’ or *voice* posts] Congratulations you’re making your group look like an asshole. Moving on.
  • All insulting [privileged people] does is hurt feelings/white tears/male tears/fee-fees/waah waah call a whambulance]etc! Good God. I literally am unable to fathom how you are so ignorant. How many people on this website have anxiety disorders? Depression? Bipolar? PSTD? ASD? How many people on this website have been so deeply hurt by “just words” that they have hurt themselves or, God help us, killed themselves? Remember when your parents would tell you to ‘just ignore’ the bullies? Remember how that made you feel, how you felt like all you could do is sit there and soak up their cruelty? Guess what. You’re the bully now.
  • But it’s not nearly as bad as what [oppressed group] goes through! YES. This is right! Being called ‘fucking cis scum’ is no where near as bad as being beaten for being trans! You are right! Did you know you are essentially prioritizing one human’s emotions over another’s? You’re saying “you broke your arm but hey, some people break BOTH arms! You’re fine!” That’s bullshit and you know why? Cause it STILL FUCKING HURTS TO HAVE A BROKEN ARM. It still hurts to be broke, even if you’re not in poverty. It still hurts to be in poverty, even if you have access to running water. One human’s pain can only be gauged by the experiences of that human- not by the theoretical ‘worse thing’ that you will throw out at them. 
  • You are not screaming at systems of power. You are screaming, bullying, and tearing down individual people. This isn’t helping your cause. This is venting anger at a system towards an individual. This is making an individual suffer the brunt of your anger and paint because they happen to have been lucky enough to be born a little bit more “acceptable” than you.
  • But they said- Fuck right off. Unless someone is throwing slurs and defending their right to use them, or advocating violence/death to people, whatever they did doesn’t deserve a pile-on of hatred. Ignorance happens. People are misinformed, ignorant, clueless creatures. Either educate them (see above), or refuse to engage. 
  • But I NEED to vent! This is my SAFE SPACE! Yes, you need to vent. Everyone does. This is NOT a safe space. This is a public blogging website where literally anyone can see and respond to whatever you throw out there. Need a safe space? There are dozens of moderated forums across the web, just a Google search away, where you can go and scream to your heart’s content around people like you, people who will understand why you are angry and why you are screaming, not random teenagers on a micro-blogging website. There are IRL groups in almost every corner of the globe, if you’d rather do some face-to-face breaking down. 
  • Your emotions are valid. Your anger is valid. Your mistrust is valid. Being horrible to people who have not actively done you harm is not valid. 

EXCELLENT

dumbingofage:

Dumbing of Age: Welcome to the Fuck Zone

I’m disappointed that “Welcome to the Fuck Zone” is not the actual comic title.

dumbingofage:

Dumbing of Age: Welcome to the Fuck Zone

I’m disappointed that “Welcome to the Fuck Zone” is not the actual comic title.

hotwing:

For two weeks, the subject had to be manually rehydrated due to the constant crying. Eventually, he turned his head and, despite his blindness, made focused eye contact with a scientist for the first time in the study.
He whispered “I have spoken with God, and He has abandoned us” and his vital signs stopped.
There was no apparent cause of death.

hotwing:

For two weeks, the subject had to be manually rehydrated due to the constant crying. Eventually, he turned his head and, despite his blindness, made focused eye contact with a scientist for the first time in the study.

He whispered “I have spoken with God, and He has abandoned us” and his vital signs stopped.

There was no apparent cause of death.

Tumblr's loving and respecting community
  • Tumblr:

    Racism is horrible!

  • user:

    yeah! it is!

  • tumblr:

    POC are mistreated!

  • user:

    yeah! it's so horrible!

  • tumblr:

    White people are horrible!

  • user:

    YEA- wait.....

  • tumblr:

    I HATE WHITE PEOPLE

  • user:

    wait what

  • tumblr:

    THEY ALL SUCK

  • user:

    i.......uh..

  • tumblr:

    Women are important.

  • user:

    oh! yes! they are!

  • tumblr:

    no matter what shape size or color!

  • user:

    yeah! youre all wonderful and great!

  • tumblr:

    men are pigs!

  • user:

    wait.......

  • tumblr:

    WE SHOULD TREAT THEM ALL LIKE IDIOTS

  • user:

    but-

  • tumblr:

    THEYRE ALL THE SAME.

  • user:

    but wait-

  • tumblr:

    Trans people are mistreated....

  • user:

    yeah...they are....

  • tumblr:

    its sick how people hurt them

  • user:

    that is sick. There's nothing wrong with trans people.

  • tumblr:

    Cis people are all horrible killers

  • user:

    but...but they're-

  • tumblr:

    fucking cis scum

  • user:

    you know....i dont feel comfortable with this

  • tumblr:

    what do you mean

  • user:

    well you're kind of bullying people-

  • tumblr:

    ITS NOT BULLYING

  • user:

    but-

  • tumblr:

    WE HAVE TO BE OPRESSED EVERY DAY. SO WE'RE ALLOWED TO CALL YOU NAMES

  • user:

    i dont think that's how that works-

  • tumblr:

    OOOOOOH YOU POOR OPRESSED WHITE CIS PERSON! YOU HAVE IT SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BAD!

  • user:

    thats not what i meant-

  • tumblr:

    DID WE HURT YOUR POOR LITTLE BABY FEELINGS

  • user:

    you're insulting-

  • tumblr:

    YOU DONT GET AN OPINION

  • user:

    .............

  • tumblr:

    by the way we love everybody! never bully! no hate! loving community! :)