SHE IS A TRUE HERO
No, she’s a bitch is what she is
what do u mean???? it was clearly an accident she even said “Oooppsss”
LMFAOOOO
Look, rather than being petty and destroying it, why not talk to the girl. Really ask them why they are using the confederate flag. But no, low level terrorism is the answer.
LOW LEVEL TERRORISM?
Low level terrorism
ICONIC
world heritage post
Morally correct
Just a reminder that tweet has lasted longer than the confederacy
Jimmy literally
As usual, @socialjust-ish leaves the gold in the tags and it’s up to me to mine them.
Things cops believe are “technicalities”:
I've worked at big software companies long enough to know how this would play out as a bug. Users report the issue. Engineers think oh thats a simple fix. However this is Google so it's likely these tickets are triaged in a way that someone like a project manager has visibility into it before deciding to dedicate time into it.
the project manager asks "is this a bug, though?" not because of homophobia but because they want to know how many users experience this as being an incorrect suggestion vs a valid suggestion. so they call the data scientists in and run some queries, and lo and behold because there's more straight couples in the world of course the data shows this is only affecting a very small amount of users. this is working fine for most users.
but the engineers and other stakeholders point out why this isnt as simple as what the data days and it's more of a UX thing. call the project managers in for whoever's in charge of like, grammar analysis and not just the system that flags it. an epic is created in jira. meetings are scheduled. don't forget experts in other languages
five weeks later you're running an A/B test on not correcting users when they write "his husband" to see if DAUs drop when your grammar suggestion engine considers that gay people can be married
Friendly reminder that LGBTQ+, Queer, and LGBT+ are the preferred terms for the community (x).
Friendly reminder that Queer is approved by 72.9% of the people, and the groups who don’t prefer it’s use as an umbrella term are straight people, exclusionists, transmeds, truscums, sex-negative people, and sex work critical people (x).
Friendly reminder that aros and aces are excluded only 9.2% / 8.1% of the time respectively while being included 78.9% / 81.2% of the time (x)
Friendly reminder that exclusionists are in the minority and aro/ace people are included in the LGBTQ+ community by the people within the community.
Also, i checked out the survey the second claim sources a while back: this is not OP choosing the words truscum, exclusionist, etc. These are labels that the survey gave people the option to self-identify as. It’s self-proclaimed exclusionists who dont like the word queer, not random accusations
yeah that’s super important.
This one gets reblogged on main. The reclassification of ‘queer’ as an inexcusable slur is a recent development which stems in part from exclusionist rhetoric. We reclaimed it decades ago. Learn our history. You are not immune to TERF propaganda, but you can absolutely choose to educate yourself to spite it.
Be kind. 💜
“friend of Dorothy” was used to say you were gay discreetly for fucking years. Where did it come from?
“You have some queer friends, Dorothy”, and she replies, “The queerness doesn’t matter, so long as they’re friends.”
Like, it was popular enough for it to be a thing in ww2.
I’m so glad I have tumblr gold so I can view this post
Tumblr gold users rise up
So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”
Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”
So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it.
That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender.
When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.
And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.
But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.
But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”
And that? That gives me hope for the future.
Similarily: “Dyke/butch/femme are lesbian words, bisexual/pansexual women shouldn’t use them.”
When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?
And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.
“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.
Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.
(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)
That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..
So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.
And once I’ve explained it, I’ve had a heartening number of lesbians go, “That’s not what I wanted to happen, so I’m going to stop saying that.”
This is good information for people who carry on with the “queer is a slur” rhetoric and don’t comprehend the push back.
ive been saying for years that around 10 years ago on tumblr, it was only radfems who were pushing the queer as slur rhetoric, and everyone who was trans or bi or allies to them would push back - radfems openly admitted that the reason they disliked the term “queer” was because it lumped them in with trans people and bi women. over the years, the queer is a slur rhetoric spread in large part due to that influence, but radfems were more covert about their reasons - and now it’s a much more prevalent belief on tumblr - more so than on any queer space i’ve been in online or offline - memory online is very short-term unfortunately bc now i see a lot of ppl, some of them bi or trans themselves, who make this argument and vehemently deny this history but…yep
Or asexuality, which has been a concept in discussions on sexuality since 1869. Initially grouped slightly to the left, as in the categories were ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, and ‘monosexual’ (which is used differently now, but then described what we would call asexuality). Later was quite happily folded in as a category of queerness by Magnus Hirschfeld and Emma Trosse in the 1890s, as an orientation that was not heterosexuality and thus part of the community.
Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.
Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!
So it blows my mind when there are these fifteen-year-olds earnestly telling me - someone who’s called themself queer longer than they’ve been alive - that “que*r is a slur.” Unfortunately, I have got reactive/defensive for the same reasons OP has mentioned. I will absolutely work on biting down my initial defensiveness and trying to explain - in good faith - the history of the word, and how it’s been misappropriated and tarnished by exclusionists.
Worth noting here is a sneaky new front I’ve seen radfems start using:
Yeah, okay, maybe older LGBTs use queer and fag and dyke…but they’re cringey, and you don’t want to be cringe, do you?
I’m not even joking. They strip the loud-and-proud aspects of our history out of all context, remove every bit of blood, sweat, and tears the queer community poured into things like anti-discrimination laws and AIDS research funding, and use those screams of rebellion to say we’re weird, and you wouldn’t want to be WEIRD.
Stop and think about that for a minute.
Yeah. They are not the arbiters of our community and they never were, and it’s important to not give them the time of day.
Today's court ruling weakening discrimination protections for LGBTQ people stands out as extraordinarily strange to me for the simple fact that there was no case. The web designer in question never received a request to create a website for a gay wedding, but instead argued that a hypothetical situation in which she did would violate her rights. I've never really heard of anything like this before— how does she even have standing to sue? Can @radiofreederry or someone with more knowledge of legalese than me elaborate on this?
Melissa Gira Grant, "The Christian Right Is Making Up Wedding Websites to Attack LGBTQ People," The New Republic, 28 June 2023:
In this latest case, there is no website and no wedding—just an argument from an anti-LGBTQ group in search of the court’s favor... No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website, according to her petition to the court. As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred. So who has hypothetically victimized Smith? A Colorado anti-discrimination law, which, since 2008, has included protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF claims Smith’s desire “to bring glory to God by creating unique expression that shares her religious beliefs of creating wedding websites” is thwarted by this law “because she only wants to make websites that comport with her values that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.” Were Smith to get into the wedding website business, the anti-discrimination law “would force me to say things about marriage I disagree with,” Smith wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Times, when her case was argued at the Supreme Court last December...
Can the court rule on thought experiments?
I've been going insane about this because it seems to me that there would literally be no standing in this case. I think I need to dig deeper into this because I feel like this should have been thrown out several courts down for simple failure to state a claim on which relief may be sought, and surely the defense should have been able to figure that out no later than the discovery phase of the initial action.
It looks like the ADF is arguing that the case counts as a "Pre-enforcement challenge," because Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014) found that "An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is 'certainly impending,' or there is a 'substantial risk' that the harm will occur." So she would likely have standing to sue if there were "substantial risk" she'd be put into her hypothetical situation. But how can she be at "substantial risk" of having someone ask her to make a gay wedding website when she's never made a wedding website before? This whole thing stretches credulity
Reddit admins are using chatgpt bots to spew pro Reddit responses to people criticising spez this is actually so goddamn pathetic
I decided to share this around Tumblr, as well
—
image id: a tweet by nick @/nickybravoart on may third. it says, "i'm so fucking mad. this is my classmate Hunter's portfolio who's a trans man. his artwork and statement on gender transition was taken down from my private schools senior showcase for "unspecified reasons". please share this, give him the attention my bigoted school denied." attached is a portfolio with four sequential images with similar lighting and background. the background is composed of two vertical stripes: the left is white and the right is sky blue. the skin tone of the person in all four images is a near-white pale. in image one, the person has long hair, red lipstick, and a sleeveless dress that is white with small red shapes that are either triangles or hearts. they are looking straight into the camera while holding scissors to a section of their hair. in image two, they are holding the cut off hair and looking at it in a way that makes their eyes hard to see. they look pensive. they are no longer wearing the dress. in image three, they are holding the back of their hair, looking out. there is bandage-like binding on their chest. in image four, they again have red lipstick, but this time it is smudged. the camera is zoomed out further so you can see that along with similar bandage binding, they are wearing black boxers. they are holding the top of their head and looking straight into the camera. end id.
note: while it is safe to assume hunter is portraying himself in this set, it is still possible it is a piece on transmasculinity as a whole, so i opted to use they/them. i searched for "hunter gender photography" but could not find this piece, so if anyone does have a link to any of his socials for credit let me know.
—
Thank you so much to @eros-vigilante for this image ID :D
I think it's so funny how we bred JOBS into dogs. I have two shih tzus and they were bred to be lap dogs. All they care about is looking cute and cuddling with people. Meanwhile my grandma has a border collie and that dog needs to feel so useful all the time, he acts like he will pass away if he doesn't have a job to do constantly
On one hand this is extremely fucking funny, but on the other hand, it really boggles my mind how many people punish their dogs for just… doing the thing they were bred to do.
Your husky isn’t “hyperactive”, it’s bred to pull sleds for 8 hours straight and you have it in a 400 sq ft yard.
Your English sheepdog isn’t “pushy”, it’s bred to herd sheep, and you have neither to space nor the herd to allow it.
Your terrier isn’t “nippy”, it’s bred to kill rats and your hamster looks a hell of a lot like one.
Your Catahoula isn’t “mean to animals”, it’s bred to hunt any and all animals smaller than it, and you didn’t acclimate it to your cat.
Your Lhasa Apso isn’t “yappy”, it’s bred to bark at any tiny noise and alert watchmen to intruders
Like Jesus Christ, if you can’t provide an environment where your dog can’t fulfill its literal life purpose, maybe?? Don’t get that dog??? And if you do, maybe know the breed characteristics so you can redirect those traits into more constructive outlets????
Both your most common doodle's parts (labra and golden) want to hunt and retrieve water birds so the best suggestion I can give y'all is congratulations on your new duck hunting hobby.
tags from @gnarlystarships because YEAH
fuuuuuuuuck
DO NOT SUPPORT AI
They will not stop unless we refuse to give them money. Do not support ai. Only human made art!
Ok, say you don't care about artists jobs. You suck, but I get some people truly don't care.
Here's why you should still boycott.
Game companies are spending less money and giving you an inferior product *and not charging less*
They are not paying aritsts anynore, but they are pocketing the saving and not reducing the cost to consumers.
So if you don't want to b boycott over artists being screwed, boycott over you being screwed.
all cops are bastards because all cops are just doing their jobs
“I’m just doing what I’m told. If I am ordered to remove gold fillings from refugees theeth then that’s what I’ll do”, says police officer Michael Hansen. Just thought I’d add this since not a lot of people outside of the nordic countries seem to have seen it. This is a danish police officer discussing a new danish law that says the police should seize the possesions and money of refugees to finance the integration.
Sorry to everyone who’s enjoyed the last 130 years of science and culture journalism, but Disney needs the money to fund Toy Story 9
Tony Hawk’s Twitter is a gold mine honestly
We Stan this San Diego Man
this
C o m e d yy
Some recent gems:
And of course there’s
I gotchu, bro:
i’m wheezgJmf stoP
Honestly every time this thread just makes me laugh. And new additions…excellent.
Good for this person. This is exactly what you do. Screw the job.
I had a job that made me work an all nighter, 30 hours straight, over Thanksgiving. I resigned that Monday and it was one of the most satisfying decisions I’ve ever made.
Please pay attention to all the manipulation tactics this boss uses, because they’re pulling out every trick in the book.
This is like a 101 course in how employers use guilt trips to coerce you into putting up with their bullshit. This is precisely why you should never trust those employers who insist that they’re “like a family.” They are not. It’s just a ruse so that your boss can neg you into putting your job ahead of your actual life.
This came up after I just made a post about start-up life.
Fang has 50% equity in everything I’ve built up because she works her ass off.
If she walks? There is an immediate cash transfer of $X. No questions asked. She has full access to it herself. If she was in the mindset of “This cash xfer is my resignation letter,” it could be thus initiated with a few clicks without me.
If someone is so valuable that your entire company rests on their singular labor, they must be trusted and compensated.
Because if not, then you don’t have a company, you have a giant rock poised over your head. “I can’t do this without you” is a table to build a negotiation, not a battle cry.
