Cause the dude in that post specifically says that the She-Ra character is drawn to resemble her “androgynous lesbian” female creator
And at the same time he also says she is drawn such that she is clearly not female:
So what he is *saying* is “does not look like a woman” but what he *means* is “looks like a woman that I don’t consider a woman”
Ohhhhhhhh.
Okay.
That’s how they can keep straight-facedly asserting that no human woman has ever resembled this [character drawn like pretty typical woman]. It’s not that they’ve never *seen* an athletic teenage girl in a sports bra, it’s that they don’t consider people actual women unless they perform femininity.
This reminds me of the Chris Hitchens article about why women aren’t funny, where he allows that there are some very funny female comedians, but they’re fat, lesbian, or Jewish. And it’s like…? Those are still WOMEN.
Someone who doesn’t even follow me sent me a shady looking link with the caption “PROOF REYLO IS ENDGAME!!” and their url is @finnlukesson.
This person’s blog is filled with ant material and it’s likely the link goes to some sort of virus targeted at us. Please block this person ASAP to avoid getting messaged by them with the bad link!!!
Reblog to save a headache. And possibly a computer.
Kay - this is the kind of thing what shouldn’t be. Accusation of malice with no evidence, then accusation that looking for evidence might be harmful sos discourages juris prudence. Then bolds imperative to not let person respond to accusation.
I has no idea who this person is, or why they might be annoying, but no, this is NOT how to make peoples safe. This is how peoples are silenced. I has been silenced this way by accusations that isn’t real nor supportable by even innuendo - is why they use the “block immediately without fact checking!” fear mongering.
A good sign that this person is full of shit - uses vague language and the sort-of accusation “
it’s likely the link goes to some sort of virus
“ - either the link does or does not. It is easy to test (no, it doesn’t).
Do not perpetuate these kinds of hate messages without evidence that the person is actually bad.
FACT CHECK - most of these ‘block X without looking’ posts are from angry little kids (some is very old little kids what hasn’t growed up (I will growed up some day!) ) and just wants to be seed and doesn’t care who they hurt in their quest for attention.
They blog is question is anti reylo. Many reylos have stated getting shady link from them ( which is anti reylo vid) but still never click link from someone you don’t know. If it was that this person very much could’ve gave reylos a virus or ha Jed their account.
The purpose of blocking is to not engage. Not sure how that equal to being silenced
The exact same message is used to tell peoples not to see my posts about autism and anti-vaxxers.
Read what I said. I didn’t never said the blogger is good, I said fact check.
I doesn’t know anything about ships - doesn’t follow any fandoms or shipping of any sort. I posts mostly about autism with a few rare blips of fun stuff and rarer angries posts.
BUT - claiming sites is malware to make peoples avoid looking for facts is common - and you fell for it. And you is now trying to perpetuate it.
Give warnings is fine and good and should be did. Provide evidence - your dictionary should has good explanation of what evidence is.
Lying about stuff you disagree with is bad.
Blocking IS silencing, by definition. The question is - is you blocking because they is bad, or is you blocking because someone told you to and you has no clue whether is bad or not? In your case - the latter seems to be the case.
😐😐😐
Why are you making this about you? I don’t even- this post got nothing to do with you being anti vax???
Also I never clicked a video I never even gotten message from that blog thank god. It’s basic common sense to not click link from someone you don’t know period.
Look if someone doesn’t want to interact with you or whoever they don’t have to. If I don’t want interact with blog that post nothing but irl gore then that case people gotta take my word for it ( or look at the blog see for themselves)
I have tags for antis/ blogs to block mostly for their safety or if they don’t want deal with it.
Again not sure why you acting like this callout post to block this antis seems like attack on you
Is not about me. Is about cutting peoples voices out without considering what they say. I has said already I has no idea what the site in question is about.
I am saying that LYING to people to silence a site is wrong, That accepting the blatant lies without fact checking is wrong.
And you are saying people should automatically assume all claims are true.
I disagree with antis - they are mostly hurt little kids what doesn’t know how to deal with their hurts and is not getting the help they need in their RL. Does not justify lying about other peoples.
I used me AS AN EXAMPLE - a concept you should has learned when you was around 6 or 7 years old. Is not about me, is JUST AN EXAMPLE. Read them words again until they sink in, then we can go on with this discussion.
Blocking is A Good Thing - when it is informed and accurate. Blocking because someone with an agenda tells you to is a bad thing.
I has NEVER said do not use blocking - I support using blocking. I has said do not use blocking just because someone you don’t know told you to.
Try READING what I say. ALL of what I say. And do not guess what I mean - take it literally. I is a nonverbal autistic - what I say is what I mean - nothing hidden - it is hard enough to make words without sneaking in other stuff.
You would normally be right that you should give everyones voice a space, but its a very common thing to send malware links through tumblr submit. It’s very common with links saying to watch videos, or check out a free game, or to give an opinion on x picture.
And whether this is one of those things or not, when it comes to fandom, even if its not malware these people arent obliged to give other peoples opinion their time. Because its make believe and a game.
If it comes down to it they should have plugged the link into the antivirus and it would spit out if it was malware or not. Even if you were right though this is not a case were warning people it’s malware with an unbiased claim is erasing someones opinion or voice.
I does not disagree with warning peoples! You can even said the site sucks just cause you doesn’t like the colors.
I disagree with the “block without fact checking, don’t even look up the url” kind of poop. Give some evidence or at least a way for people to verify the claims.
“Block or die” messages are almost always from people trying to prevent you from seeing something they don’t like and is almost never legit. Is just not how to spread awareness of a problem. Like telling kids “don’t talk to strangers” sos when they is in trouble they doesn’t ask for help cause the only peoples around are strangers.
There is so much wrong with “don’t fact check what anonymous people tell you on the internet” …
I have never seen a single confirmed instance of the malware link through submit thing. Not once. I’ve seen it used as a false accusation against people who had unpopular opinions dozens of times.
Warning people that a thing is malware isn’t erasing someone’s voice. Telling people to block a specific poster preemptively because of a completely unsourced and unverified claim about their behavior, however, usually is an attempt to silence them with no basis in fact.
“don’t click any links they send you in submit” would be a reasonable warning. “block them without investigating further” is shady as fuck bullshit, and i am pretty sure i can tell who in this scenario is more likely to be sending malware.
seriously, do you self-involved morons really think lysikan gives a fuck about star wars ships? this is about lies and manipulation. stop being pawns.
I agree as ive said in my convo with lysikan, but when i was a mere baby to this website i actually did fall for the whole malware in a link trick. It was when it was going around as a “lookit my prom dress” link. It wasnt hard to get rid of tho and all it did is co opt ur account to forward that link.
1) you didn’t read lysikan’s posts or mine. we keep SAYING that warning people isn’t the problem. sending out a general call to block someone is the problem.
2) the existence of genuine malware links does not in any way invalidate our point that this same technique is used to silence and control people for super fucking sinister reasons.
3) using a shady fucking technique like that makes me suspect OP of bad intent because it’s a shady fucking technique. we are saying this is some shady shit right here don’t do it.
but y’all keep coming back with “ok but in this case the witch in the barn is real, so you’re wrong to say handing out torches and nailing the barn door shut is a problem!”
well, i’ve watched my friend roachpatrol get called a peophile for going on two years now because a nazi didn’t like roach’s success in raising donations for the holocaust museum, and everybody on this hellsite takes accusations at face value without checking into them, and then turns around and passes the accusations on to more gullible fucks, and that turns out to be a lot harder to get rid of than fucking malware!
besides, who clicks links in submits from someone they don’t know? put the net nanny back on, jesus fucking christ.
I can’t tell for certain whether OP is genuinely concerned about their followers’ safety and is recommending the course of action that’s likeliest to prevent harm, or is trying to silence someone they have a petty grudge against, but given I also know nothing about malware, I’d be inclined to avoid interacting with finnlukeson just in case.
The call to block someone to in order to prevent them from sending you
malware is going to have a lot less power to affect peoples’ behavior if
you spread the word about what can and can’t put your computer or phone
at risk, and how to check.
(Also, repeating a false accusation about someone, even if only to use it as an example of the type of malicious lies that get told about innocent people on tumblr, puts that accusation back at the front of peoples’ minds.)
Anonymous asked: Interesting factoid. If two people are drunk and have sex, neither of them could truly give consent. If one of them is female, only the male will be charged with rape. (Because the laws count rape as the act of penetration without consent, not sex without consent.) But for the purposes of the anon's bullshit, technically 'both parties were equally drunk' counts as 'justification' if you're going to be pedantic about the goddamn thing. Which they are.
There’s weird legal fuzz going on there now, but yeah. Laws on rape are really weird and tend to sort of hover around the general vicinity of moral rules without really quite making sense.
If you’ve never seen “Mononoke Dance” (and it’s no longer on youtube) here you go and even if you’re put off by it please please hold out for the final twist
You know what’s really weird? From what I can tell (having read descriptions/reviews and some scattered bits of the book itself), the parts of The Bell Curve that aren’t about race are dedicated to making a completely standard disability-rights type argument that could be almost effortlessly rephrased using terms like “ableism,” “accommodations,” “cognitive privilege,” etc.
Basically Charles Murray thinks the social structures around us have been designed by people with high IQs on the assumption that everyone can do the things they can do, and just as easily as they can do them, and so the world is lacking in figurative “wheelchair ramps” for people who don’t have relatively high cognitive ability. His policy proposals at the end are stuff like “more accommodations” and “better social safety net.”
I know next to nothing about Murray, but have to I imagine that when he hears “IQ research is bad because it was used to justify eugenics,” it sounds to him like “some people wanted to sterilize people who couldn’t walk, and that involved identifying who could walk and who couldn’t, so let’s just pretend everyone can walk. What could go wrong?”
This isn’t some horseshoe theory joke or any other kind of “own,” or like, anything, it’s honestly unsetting how leftist this stuff sounds and how easy it is to imagine it being a standard leftist concern. And hell, if this critique of society is true, well, most people are never going to know that, because it’s written in The Horrible Book, by Voldemort, and not really (m)any other places that I know of
What if Charles Murray is right about why people suffer and there are people suffering who will go on suffering because instead of spreading the idea in a pragmatic way, he chose to put it in something that would predictably become The Horrible Book by Voldemort and make very very sure no one would go near the radioactive idea for decades, what if, what if. These are the kind of things that bother me, like, constantly, as ever-present background noise whenever I think about Serious matters, and, argh,
You should probably go ahead and read the book and find out. You’re in a better position than most to understand whether his science is good or not. I personally wouldn’t be able to tell.
In advocating for the destruction of your enemies through violence, you are advocating a world where the most violent survive.
Do you think the effect of this will be very good for the marginalised?
Because I don’t.
Why do you think the bad guys always advocate violence as the only thing that works? Because it’s the only thing that works for them no matter who does it.
Violence is the root of all political power.
What happens if you break a law? The legal system levies an ‘appropriate’ punishment. A parking ticket, a monetary fine.
What if you don’t pay the fine? People put pressure on you. You might get taken to court. If you don’t go to court, you’ll be punished for not showing up to court. If you don’t show up to that court? What happens?
Essentially, the unwritten rule beneath all civilized society is “if you don’t go along with it, we’ll hurt you.”
I’m not saying this is good, but fundamentally it is true. Now this doesn’t mean ‘violence is the only important/good/useful thing’ because as a social species it just fucking isn’t. But if someone is attacking you VIOLENTLY, you’re not going to be able to use things like reasoned debate, polite requests or role-play exercises to prevent the attack. You might choose to, on principle, refuse to resist and suffer injury or death. That’s fine. You might choose to defend yourself with minimal force. Also fine. You might reply with disproportionate force… which is not fine.
You can prevent violent acts with nonviolent means. You cannot, in the moment, protect yourself from a violent act with nonviolent means (most of the time at least)*.
A lot of people in the global community (and the tumblr community) see the spread of beliefs such as ‘ethnic cleansing is good’ and ‘conservative christian nationalism is the future’ as a violent act against them… and honestly if you’re in a group that’s marked for electrical torture by the VP or considered an inferior race by the domestic terrorist organizations that infest law enforcement, that’s one FUCK of a sword of Damocles.
I’m not advocating “gun people down on the street if they graffiti a swastika.” Thing is, if you see someone staring you down and lining up the table full of tool they’ll use to discredit, dehumanise and (possibly) kill you and/or people you care greatly about, it’s a bit completely fucking naive of you to judge the victims for not wanting to disarm themselves and open their hearts to the rhetoric of their opponents.
If you’re not personally a victim of this bullshit, YOU should be advocating peace by talking down the aggressors. The victims should be prepared for in case it goes wrong. NOBODY should be making preemptive strikes.
*Sure, you could do something like call the police, or yell for help and make an attacker flee. But those still rely on violence as a coercive tool. The unspoken consequence is ‘people will be here who will force you to comply with their demands or you will be hurt’ even if you don’t do the hurting yourself. Don’t call yourself a pacifist if you just have someone else do the leg-breaking on your behalf.
I don’t object to people not wanting to disarm themselves. I do object to them disarming me.
There is such a thing as a rhetorical battle. It is possible to convince people. It is, in fact, not even all that hard if you’re willing to take the time. And it doesn’t just stop people, it makes them into new allies. You can, in fact, convert the enemies.
Yes, I’ve seen people saying that you can’t talk white supremacists out of their views. I’ve seen them saying it as an argument that someone who has successfully done so many times is wrong to continue successfully doing this thing, because by successfully doing the thing he’s giving people the idea that it may be possible, and then they’ll try it and necessarily fail because it’s impossible.
“There is such a thing as a rhetorical battle. It is possible to convince people. It is, in fact, not even all that hard if you’re willing to take the time. And it doesn’t just stop people, it makes them into new allies. You can, in fact, convert the enemies.”
I don’t know if “not that hard” is accurate. It’s something I’ve had some trouble with myself. If I were to change the mind of someone with a destructive ideology, it’d require a lot from me that I don’t currently have, like…
1. The certainty I’m right. (Or, at least, that making the person I’m arguing with see things my way will make the world better.)
2. Enough strength and security to engage this person. (Am I going to be hurt by exposing myself to their views? Am I going to bring the fury of their friends on me by arguing with them?)
3. A common frame of reference with the person I disagree with. Do we consider the same sources of fact credible? Can what I consider “good” exist in the same world as what they consider “good?”
4. Charisma or status. A person can be in the moral right and have facts on their side and still be dismissed if their personality is abrasive or annoying, or if they’re unattractive, or if they’re unsuccessful by society’s metrics (poor, unpopular, mentally ill, etc,) or if them even daring to argue seems presumptuous because of a power differential (like a student trying to convince a teacher, or a child trying to convince their parent.)
5. Something positive to offer the person I’m arguing with that offsets the loss and confusion and alienation of changing their worldview.
6. The will to do hard, unpleasant work with no definite endpoint and no certainty of success.
This is, by far, the best counter-argument I’ve ever seen made. I’d like to address these points.
Point one: This one is pretty easy, I think; all you need is confidence that not committing genocide is probably better than committing genocide. Or not hating people for their skin color is better than hating them for their skin color. Conveniently, this is pretty well researched.
Point two: This is a completely valid reason to consider not trying to have those conversations. Not everyone can do every activism. That said, I would point out that the most effective conversion strategies do not much rely on “arguing”. They rely on being human. Sure, there’s occasional arguments involved, but 90% or more of it is nothing more than treating people honestly and decently. One white supremacist’s turning point was when his Jewish employer paid him extra for working hard, instead of trying to cheat him. It was simply impossible for him to reconcile this act with his beliefs.
Point three: Again, you don’t need to argue the facts, in general. You need to humanize the things they fear, and offer them hope. I spent a long time trying to argue the relative benefits of legal gay marriage with a guy. I didn’t make any progress by arguing it, but I thought he was being pretty reasonable and genuinely interested, so we started hanging out regularly. And he said once that, in all the years people had tried to convince him of this, I was the only one who’d actually been willing to talk to him about what my experiences were like, and listen to him talking about his, and actually engage with him rather than with a straw man. These days, he’s a lot more receptive to the notion, because it’s now a thing he associates with his friend he has coffee with, not with angry shouty people.
Point four: That’s absolutely true. But once you’re basically-an-adult, you can usually have influence on people simply by being around and being an example for them to factor into their beliefs.
Point five: Friendship and compassion and a recognition that being human is hard. Anyone can offer this, and it is worth more than everything else.
Point six: Yeah. That’s… hard. But at the same time, the work itself is much less unpleasant than you might think, because it turns out, virtually no one is just a bigot. People will have other interests, other hobbies, and befriending them means in part coming to interact with the whole, and letting them do that with you. It’s easy to hate abstractions; it’s hard to hate individual people who have shown you kindness.
But… Yeah. It can be hard, and there are no definite endpoints sometimes.
This is true of all sorts of things. I spend a lot of time talking people out of killing themselves. It’s stressful, it’s painful, and you can never be quite sure it’s over; the most you get is “over for now”. But for all that… It’s worth it. So many of the people I rely on for emotional support are around because I or someone else talked them down from a metaphorical ledge sometime in the past.
With talking people around from bigotry, there is absolutely such a thing as a definitive win. One of the nastiest angriest homophobes I ever knew was, last I checked, a friendly, happy, and loving trans woman who had finally understood what she was so distressed about and come to terms with it. She’s happier. So were the people whose lives I saw her touch thereafter. There are so many people working so hard to make things better who used to be bigots.
You may not have the spoons, or the confidence, or something else. In which case, that’s okay! Take care of yourself, survive, try to get better. But if you can do the thing… It is the thing most worth doing.
Thanks for getting back to me. I think I may have, in part, been exaggerating the difficulty of engaging with people to…excuse myself from attempting to do it?
I can’t do everything, but I can talk to most people respectfully.
