and taken out of context

I started the Gay Plague

So in school, I sit at a table with all guys, not a problem. I’m told that I’m a “tomboy” so I easily get along with them. On a Friday, we had a substitute cause our teacher had to go to a meeting, and we decided to goof around cause “hey the asshole teacher isn’t here”. I started saying stuff that could really be gay when taken out of context and shoving my pointer fingers together. The Gay Shit if ya know what I mean. The other dudes at my table started making gay sexual innuendos and wiggling their eyebrows. Next thing you know the blonde boy at my table is dancing on a chair with his leg bended upwards and I got called a lesbian, which is right

So this kid, we’ll call him Davy-boy. He says “Wow you are super gay” and I’m like “Well shit you got a point” and then he’s like “When did we all become gay?” And I snap my finger and say “Taste the rainbow” and he’s like “YOU ARE THE RAINBOW”. So shit I turned everyone gay


Fun fact; I found out Davy-boy is actually questioning his sexuality. I actually made a fucking dude question his sexuality

anonymous asked:

The mermen solo triplets HCs were so good! Can I request merman!kylo x mermaid!reader HCs? I appreciate what y'all are doing!

thanks!! sure thing!! 

  • you’re surprised when Kylo approaches you - you’d heard rumors about the dark, lone merman who studied to become a sea witch beneath someone named Snoke, but you’d always thought the rumors were out of control and taken out of context of things
    • your surprise comes mostly from the fact that Kylo seemed to detest most of the other mermaids in your part of the sea, especially based on some dialogue you overheard when others tried to approach him - he could be rather condescending 
  • you eventually come to find that kylo approached you because you were smarter than the other mermaids - “Your brain isn’t filled with seaweed,” he had said - and you didn’t waste your time getting wrapped up in silly ghost stories and rumors
  • Kylo explains what fuels a sea witch to you - passion, pain, emotions that are often encouraged to be shrugged aside - and you develop a deeper understanding for the merman who used to be alone but now has you
  • so when he kisses you beneath the moonlight of his private cavern, you’re not entirely surprised but you’re still in disbelief that any of this is real
  • even though Kylo thrives in darkness, you’re the last little bit of light he has and he holds on to you tightly as a result
  • some of the other merfolk are concerned, believing fake rumors more than anything else, but you’ve never felt safer than you do with Kylo - sure, he can be dark and dangerous, but he holds you like you’re a porcelain doll that dropped from the surface and never shattered on it’s way to the sea

tbh, the way certain people worship Pegg for that quote, and turn a blind eye on how actually insulting, silly and ignorant his joke was when you think about it, just confirms how little people in this fandom (like others) care about actual representation versus just finding pretexts to validate their shipper agenda.
In fact, I see that quote being taken out of context and used more in support of the usual suspect not-canon slash ships (and, of course, a pretext to once again shit on S/U), than Sulu and his subplot.

Regarding any rumors or posts you may or may not have seen about me, everything was taken out of context and is extremely misinterpreted. Please signal boost this as this witch hunt mentality has bullied and hurt a lot of people before. It started in 2013 and has since then escalated into outlandish and wild accusations. I will never leave but this brutal attitude has got to stop. 

The rules about responding to call outs aren’t working

Privileged people rarely take the voices of marginalized people seriously. Social justices spaces attempt to fix this with rules about how to respond to when marginalized people tell you that you’ve done something wrong. Like most formal descriptions of social skills, the rules don’t quite match reality. This is causing some problems that I think we could fix with a more honest conversation about how to respond to criticism.

The formal social justice rules say something like this:

  • You should listen to marginalized people.
  • When a marginalized person calls you out, don’t argue.
  • Believe them, apologize, and don’t do it again.
  • When you see others doing what you were called out for doing, call them out.

Those rules are a good approximation of some things, but they don’t actually work. It is impossible to follow them literally, in part because:

  • Marginalized people are not a monolith. 
  • Marginalized people have the same range of opinions as privileged people.
  • When two marginalized people tell you logically incompatible things, it is impossible to act on both sets of instructions.
  • For instance, some women believe that abortion is a human right foundational human right for women. Some women believe that abortion is murder and an attack on women and girls.
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you who to believe, what policy to support, or how to talk about abortion. 
  • For instance, some women believe that religious rules about clothing liberate women from sexual objectification, other women believe that religious rules about clothing sexually objectify women. 
  • “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you what to believe about modesty rules. 
  • Narrowing it to “listen to women of minority faiths” doesn’t help, because women disagree about this within every faith.
  • When “listen to marginalized people” means “adopt a particular position”, marginalized people are treated as rhetorical props rather than real people.
  • Objectifying marginalized people does not create justice.

Since the rule is literally impossible to follow, no one is actually succeeding at following it. What usually ends up happening when people try is that:

  • One opinion gets lifted up as “the position of marginalized people” 
  • Agreeing with that opinion is called “listen to marginalized people”
  • Disagreeing with that opinion is called “talking over marginalized people”
  • Marginalized people who disagree with that opinion are called out by privileged people for “talking over marginalized people”.
  • This results in a lot of fights over who is the true voice of the marginalized people.
  • We need an approach that is more conducive to real listening and learning.

This version of the rule also leaves us open to sabotage:

  • There are a lot of people who don’t want us to be able to talk to each other and build effective coalitions.
  • Some of them are using the language of call-outs to undermine everyone who emerges as an effective progressive leader. 
  • They say that they are marginalized people, and make up lies about leaders.
  • Or they say things that are technically true, but taken out of context in deliberately misleading ways.
  • The rules about shutting up and listening to marginalized people make it very difficult to contradict these lies and distortions. 
  • (Sometimes they really are members of the marginalized groups they claim to speak for. Sometimes they’re outright lying about who they are).
  • (For instance, Russian intelligence agents have used social media to pretend to be marginalized Americans and spread lies about Hillary Clinton.)

The formal rule is also easily exploited by abusive people, along these lines:

  • An abusive person convinces their victim that they are the voice of marginalized people.
  • The abuser uses the rules about “when people tell you that you’re being oppressive, don’t argue” to control the victim.
  • Whenever the victim tries to stand up for themself, the abuser tells the victim that they’re being oppressive.
  • That can be a powerfully effective way to make victims in our communities feel that they have no right to resist abuse. 
  • This can also prevent victims from getting support in basic ways.
  • Abusers can send victims into depression spirals by convincing them that everything that brings them pleasure is oppressive and immoral. 
  • The abuser may also isolate the victim by telling them that it would be oppressive for them to spend time with their friends and family, try to access victim services, or call the police. 
  • The abuser may also separate the victim from their community and natural allies by spreading baseless rumors about their supposed oppressive behavior. (Or threatening to do so).
  • When there are rules against questioning call outs, there are also implicit rules against taking the side of a victim when the abuser uses the language of calling out.
  • Rules that say some people should unconditionally defer to others are always dangerous.

The rule also lacks intersectionality:

  • No one experiences every form of oppression or every form of privilege.
  • Call-outs often involve people who are marginalized in different ways. 
  • Often, both sides in the conflict have a point.
  • For instance, black men have male privilege and white women have white privilege.
  • If a white woman calls a black man out for sexism and he responds by calling her out for racism (or vice versa), “listened to marginalized people” isn’t a very helpful rule because they’re both marginalized.
  • These conversations tend to degenerate into an argument about which form of marginalization is most significant.
  • This prevents people involved from actually listening to each other.
  • In conflicts like this, it’s often the case that both sides have a legitimate point. (In ways that are often not immediately obvious.)
  • We need to be able to work through these conflicts without expecting simplistic rules to resolve them in advance.

This rule also tends to prevent groups centered around one form of marginalized from coming to engage with other forms of marginalization:

  • For instance, in some spaces, racism and sexism are known to be issues, but ableism is not.
  • (This can occur in any combination. Eg: There are also spaces that get ableism and sexism but not racism, and spaces that get economic justice and racism but not antisemitism, or any number of other things.)
  • When disabled people raise the issue of ableism in any context (social justice or otherwise), they’re likely to be shouted down and told that it’s not important.
  • In social justice spaces, this shouting down is often done in the name of “listening to marginalized people”.
  • For instance, disabled people may be told ‘you need to listen to marginalized people and de-center your issues’, carrying the implication that ableism is less important than other forms of oppression.
  • (This happens to *every* marginalized group in some context or other.)
  • If we want real intersectional solidarity, we need to have space for ongoing conflicts that are not simple to resolve.

Tl;dr “Shut up and listen to marginalized people” isn’t quite the right rule, because it objectifies marginalized people, leaves us open to sabotage, enables abuse, and prevents us from working through conflicts in a substantive way. We need to do better by each other, and start listening for real.

that “transitioning is cissexist” tweet that’s been screencapped and making the rounds lately was made by a trans woman who was entirely 100% speaking in jest to criticise someone else’s argument in that thread, it was taken out of context by people bent on harassing them and is now being disseminated by really unpleasant fash on here, pls don’t reblog it thanks

I’m sorry, but this is complete bullshit. I get censoring out videos that talk about sex and more explicit things - which these restrictions accomplish to some extent - but this does more than just that. 

For example:

  • You know dodie’s “Sick of Losing Soulmates” video? Yeah, the official music video got taken down, but not because of language. The original release of the song on her main channel is still up with the restrictions on.
  • When you look up creators like Connor Franta, Troye Sivan, Hannah Hart, and Tyler Oakley, just to name a few, in the search bar, their channels don’t show up.
  • Mary Lambert’s “She Keeps Me Warm” official video isn’t available. Some videos of her performing it are up, but not the actual music video, a video that has no adult themes. 
  • Evan Edinger’s video on demisexuality isn’t available. Sure, he mentions the word “sex” a few times, but sex ed/human reproductive system videos aren’t down.
  •  MilesChronicles only has eight videos up with the restrictions. All their videos relating to their gender or sexuality don’t appear on their channel.
  • Troye Sivan’s coming out video (2013) isn’t there.
  • All of Melanie Murphy’s videos - except one - where she talks about her bisexuality aren’t available.
  • Only eight of Stevie Boebi’s videos show up on her channel; only one directly relates to being queer, the other is her identity video where “lesbian or bisexual” is in the thumbnail.

Trust me, there are more; you don’t have to look far to find them. But why does it matter? Can’t you just turn off the restrictions? Well yes, if it isn’t locked. YouTube offers an option to lock on Restricted Mode for the browser. A kid who’s trying to figure themself out and is terrified about it won’t have these resources and stories and models to help them if their parent(s) enable this restriction. Their self journey will be so much longer and harder than necessary because of it.

And what about the younger kids. The kids who are in a heavily sheltered environment where the only information they have about being queer is taken-out-of-context Bible verses. They’ll see the very minuscule number of lgbtq+ videos and feel even more isolated and like a pariah.

We need these videos.

Youtube has been a happy place and a space of belonging for me and so many others, we can’t take lose that. @youtube you said you’re proud of representing queer voices, you better fucking mean it.


UPDATE (20/3/17):

As pointed out by Philip DeFranco - amongst others - this is not only an lgbtq+ issue. We should not be viewing this just as *potential* homophobia, but rather marking people who are different from the societal norm as an “other.”

It has been brought to my attention that some videos concerning mental health issues have also been taken down. As @srgtfuckybarnes said, Hannah Hart’s video about living with depression is no longer available with these restrictions.

This is a bigger issue. It takes people who have different thoughts and opinions and placing them in a light that suggests their views are less than. 

I want to make this very, very clear, though: the intent of YouTube isn’t bad. I highly, highly doubt workers at YouTube sat down and at a meeting and said they were going to censor these types of people. That being said, the result/effect is still negative. How it effects people (in this situation) stands out more than whether or not YouTube is trying to separate people as an “other.”


Thank you to everyone (especially @2022hadmefrickinzazzed) for making constant updates to this. That is very much appreciated.