~ justified

anonymous asked:

Newfound kink for Timothy Olyphant 😞😞

Ooooh, just in general? or do you mean a particular kink with him, Nonny?

If it’s a general one, there’s so many sides to choose from.
Let’s see, there’s Joel Hammond kink…

Then there’s Raylan Givens kink…

Originally posted by yotb0ka

A Perfect Getaway’s, Nick kink…

Originally posted by safedistancefrombeingsmart

Catch and Release, Fritz’s kink… *sigh*

Kelly kink…

Originally posted by futuristicstrangerqueen

And finally psychotic Scream 2 kink…

Originally posted by hauntedrpg

WOAH, Nonny… spread the love why dontcha. lol ;)

yeah okay so listen up one sec, you know how much i love jason todd and appreciate his character and will defend him to hell for everything he’s been put through, but some of you excuse all the abuse he himself put others through (from hurting them to flat out killing them most of the time) by using the mental illness card in the worst of ways. it’s great some of you acknowledge he’s a mentally ill character and not just a hurt, misunderstood boy, but you can’t use his mental health as a crutch and explain all the slaughtering he did in his early red hood days as completely okay and justifiable? that’s not doing any of us any favors. it’s not doing his character any favors either. he needed/needs help, not excuses

cruelty, fear of vulnerability, and/or emotional constipation disguised as objectivity, rationality, righteousness and moral authority are neither apolitical nor morally neutral; they are far from harmless or justifiable, and they are inextricable from one’s politics

using politics, activism and social criticism/commentary as means for covertly projecting personal insecurities and identity crises upon others and acting out one’s desire to be cruel, superior and impervious to others should be completely unacceptable – and yet, it is not, because it is commonly accepted that as long as one is aligned with the “right” causes and directs their unchecked cruelty toward the people who “deserve” it, anything is permissible no matter what motivates it

this is not the same thing as saying “don’t fight hate with hate” “violence is not the answer” or “if you’re mean/angry, you’re just as bad as they are”, mind U – being told things like that is solely meant to deny us the means to communicate the violence we see/experience, to protect ourselves from violence, and to interrupt hegemony

refusing to do this examination of one’s politics and the politics of those in our communities is how it becomes possible to harbour abusers, manipulators, exploiters, and opportunists – they take advantage of a veneer of moral correctness to do harm, and their behaviour is either viewed as normal and/or justifiable, or goes unchallenged because they occupy marginalised identities, are aligned with the “right” causes, or are viewed as moral authorities

and it is not just possible to harbour them – it is equally possible to become them by deceiving ourselves about thoughts and behaviour that would otherwise be understood as unacceptable or inexcusable

we must each address our insecurities, our misgivings, our negative tendencies, our flaws, our fears, our defense mechanisms, and our maliciousness because the nature and enactment of our politics are inextricably linked to and rooted in these things – they cannot be separated from each other or compartmentalised – the very violence and trauma we face in this work can and does cause us to inflict and (re)produce violence and trauma; working through this is equally as important as any other work

we must constantly think about why we are here

  • Jikook: does something
  • Salty shippers: he barely touched his neck. He was kissing his hand. They shouldn't force themselves to this level of fan service.
  • *Other ship does fan service*
  • Salty shippers: oMG!!!! Did y'all see that! Abdjdkx it's real, you can see the emotion! ...
Being afraid is okay, telling me i should kill my pet is not.

It doesnt really matter if you are afraid of snakes. You can be afraid of them all you want, but what isn’t justified is telling people who own these animals that they should all be killed simply because you are afraid.

Be an adult and keep that crap to yourself.

I Can't Even

You guys…I talked to my cousin tonight. She disclosed to me that Ms. 6’s pre-adoptive family apparently sat down my high school age cousin and told them Ms. 6’s history, what she did in their home to justify why they could no longer adopt her, and they told her some things that Ms. 6 supposedly disclosed that she did to one of our kids. They have never talked to us about any concerns they had for our children. Why in the world would you sit a teen down and give her all sorts of personal and confidential information about a child after she has moved from your home? To justify your decision? I’m sorry, but vent to a friend.

Now I’m trying to figure out if this impacts the case. My cousin is super immature and apparently siding with the pre-adoptive family (in all her wisdom) that we should not be adopting Ms. 6. My cousin is loud and lacks judgment. Maybe because she’s all of 18 and going through her own hardships right now. However, there is nothing that would prevent her from confronting Ms. 6 about what she’s heard (which would be completely inappropriate) or telling other people which would also make transitioning back to our home even more challenging.

I’m so angry/heartsick/sad.

magiccatprincess  asked:

I felt so much for Mozart during that scene! It also made me think of how he never had a normal childhood

fuck man yeah seriously like how do the other ‘loids not get that the part of the reason he acts so childish is because he had this pressure put on him at an extremely young age to be professional by a father living vicariously through his talented genius kid and as history constantly tells us that never works out well for a person’s emotional development, cut the little shit some slack!

anonymous asked:

But Imagine later in the season Bellamy is talking to Clarke about how much he hates himself for the things he did last season and Clarke just looks at him and says 'Who we are and who we need to be to survive are different things'

I don’t like how people romanticize that saying. It is “the ends justify the means” and it’s not true.

What you do is who you are. If you do evil in the name of keeping everyone alive, that still means you do evil. 

He said it because they had just tortured Lincoln. He was saying they weren’t torturers. But they were. Separating yourself from the evil you do is how you make it easier to do more evil. 

“Oh it’s not me, I’m not that person who causes harm. It was for my people.”

You ARE responsible for what you do when you let your monster out.

You DO have a choice in not crossing that line.

Your ends DO NOT justify the evil that you do. 

This quote is coming from Bellamy, who shot Jaha to come to Earth. Who threw away the radio so they wouldn’t come after him. This is the Bellamy before he learned that doing the right thing is more important than doing it for your people. 

So many of the lessons that Clarke gets about leadership are the wrong lessons, and this is one. 

You don’t excuse your wrong actions by blaming them on someone else, or that everyone does it, or deflect it, or refuse to even consider them wrong.

You say THIS is what I did. It was wrong. I am sorry. I won’t do it again. I will change and try to make up for what I did and be a better person. 

You don’t pretend that wasn’t you. 

anonymous asked:

I wanted to ask for advice on how to tell someone not to use gay or other similar words as an insult? It tends to get on my nerves but I don't know how to approach it (and often if I do they just laugh).

I might not be the best person to answer this because I, personally, just tend to snap at people. Anyway…


🔥 Tell them you’re uncomfortable with it. “can you please not use the word gay that way? It makes me uncomfortable.”

🔥 Tell them it’s insulting. “hey, I know maybe you aren’t trying to, but using the word gay that way is insulting to the lgbtqpia+ community. It’s really rude and degrading.”

🔥Keep on them. Pester them about it. Every time they do it, correct them.

🔥Understand that if you do get angry your anger is justified. You’re not wrong to be unhappy with their behavior.

Hope this helps. ~Mod Kai 🐉

i’m glad that breath of the wild found an excuse for zelda gungeons to actually be the way there are. like instead of being ancient temples with puzzles in them for no reason, they’re actual trials specifically designed to be solved by Link. they’re puzzles in-universe. 

in previous zelda games, dungeons had puzzles in them for no real reason. they were designed as video game puzzle rooms with no thought put in to the in-universe implications of these rooms. they were just these massive areas full of puzzles for no reason

in BOTW, they’re straight up puzzles designed directly by a higher power to test link’s ingenuity specifically. they’re not meant for anyone else. they exist for him. they finally justified the puzzles. 

don’t justify bathroom laws by showing pics of passing trans people !!! like that is not reality for so many people, and what about nb people? gender neutral bathrooms are the only solution, fuck your binary wow

On the one hand, perhaps this will prevent any messages to the effect of “but Dicta, you’re overreacting, sympathy towards these two things don’t go together.”

On the other hand, this is the most appalling pile of garbage I’ve read in a good long while and needs to be taken apart with a fucking scalpel.

Milo is not evil any more than Draco in the books - Maybe, maybe not, but Milo is a real person whose actions affect real people, and his actions are therefore in an entirely different ethical category.

not everyone in the world is altruistic… - No, but the existence of bad behavior neither justifies nor excuses bad behavior.

…They are still seen as “good people” because they were on the side that won, the side that thinks itself morally superior.  - No. They are seen as good people because they seek to decrease harm, rather than increasing harm.

Other peoples opinions do not hurt you, other peoples actions do. - Expressing an opinion is an action. Expressing an opinion that is intended to incite others to exclusion and violence is an action. Expressing the opinion, as Milo did, that people should “catcall at least five women” in celebration of “World Patriarchy Day,” is both an action and a call to action. Even in the United States, which takes one of the (if not the) world’s most hard-line positions on free speech, speech that is meant to incite people to harmful action (a la yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, which will cause a stampede) can be restricted, precisely because the expression of ideas can cause harm.

You have nothing to fear from a calm discussion with someone you disagree with. - You do if that “calm discussion” is not, was never intended to be, an exchange. You do when it’s one-sided and broadcast to an audience who the speaker knows will act against you, as was the case in Milo’s criticism of Leslie Jones.

You do from anyone who gets angry when their point of view is challenged, because they are intolerant, they want to shut down discussion of a topic - Not all ideas ought to be tolerated. Free speech principles and laws mean that almost any idea can make its way into the world, but people are not obligated to, and should not, give them all equal consideration. As a society, we should not tolerate the idea that “Women are…screwing up the internet for men by invading every space we have online and ruining it with attention-seeking and a needy, demanding, touchy-feely form of modern feminism that quickly comes into conflict with men’s natural tendency to be boisterous, confrontational, and delightfully autistic” or that “all heads of diversity and indeed every employee of any diversity or equality department should be white men—the more privileged the better. After all only rich, well-educated, well-connected heterosexual white males have the required detachment and lack of emotional connection to the issues at hand to make the right calls.” Milo has the legal right to say these things. We might have something to fear from people who want to remove that legal right, but that is not and has never been part of this equation. He has, and there has been no attempt to abridge, his legal right to say just about whatever he wants. Those who disagree with him have a legal right to respond, as well as an ethical obligation to refute ideas that seek to impugn the worth, intelligence, politics, rationality, and agency of women, people of color, and non-neurotypical people. Of our fellow humans.

that is fascism, restriction of the free movement of ideas.  - no. Fascism refers to a set of governing ideals that include legally sanctioned violence, legally sanctioned restrictions to freedom of movement and expression, total or near-total control of economic systems by the government, nationalistic ideals that rely on othering minorities in order to form a sense of national cohesion, and anti-liberal rejection of disagreement. Everything about this circumstance is the very opposite of fascism. Milo is legally allowed to say what he likes, where he likes, and to earn money from it however he likes. Other people are allowed to respond however they like, including by refuting his ideas, not listening to his ideas, working to restrict the available private venues in which he seeks to spread his ideas, and making it harder for him to earn money off of them. That interplay between speaker and audience, and the freedom of both sides to express what they believe constitutes acceptable public discourse, is completely consistent with democratic liberalism.

Someone like Milo, who is throwing opinions out there with jokes is not a bad person. - Neither opining nor joking makes someone a bad person.  If your jokes consist, as Milo’s do, of calling someone “a typical example of a sort of thick-as-pig shit media Jew” or attending an anti-rape march with a sign that reads “Rape Culure and Harry Potter: Both Fantasy,” then you’re into bad person territory - the problem is not that someone tried to make a joke, but that that “joke” depends on devaluing, belittling, and hurting people.

To take that freedom away would be Fascism. If he and other people who think like him are prevented from sharing their ideas that is censorship. - No. You misunderstand the difference between public laws and private individuals or companies. If the government takes away freedoms of speech, expression, and movement, then it’s censorship and perhaps, depending on circumstance, one component of authoritarianism. If private companies, like twitter, refuse to give him a platform they are well within their rights to do so, because they are not bound by the same mandates as the government. If private individuals, individually or collectively, refute, protest, or refuse to listen to a set of ideas, that is itself a form of free expression. The ability of audiences to object to what Milo says is evidence of the absence of fascism or censorship.

if they want to hear him speak at a conference/buy his book/read his twitter they should be able to. At the moment they can’t. That to my mind is evil, it’s like living in China where people are censored because of their beliefs. - They can’t because a preponderance of people, including people on the political right, have agreed that his ideas are harmful, stupid, and intolerable, and have made it economically and reputationally non-viable for private venues to offer him a platform. That is the result of free expression and a free market responding to feedback from a bipartisan majority. That is how free market democracies work. Note, too, that people who want to hear his ideas can still seek them out easily and at low or no cost with a simple google search, and that he can continue to speak through whatever venues will have him. This, again, is exactly how free market democracies work.

Those principles [free speech and expression, minimal government interference, and democracy] are what have allowed gay rights, rights for women etc, because it was government restrictions that prevented these from occurring before. Government restrictions to women voting, government restrictions to marriage etc. It was the removal of these laws that allowed these freedoms of individual expression to occur. - This is so profoundly historically wrong that I am cringing on behalf of every teacher you’ve ever had. Unpacking this knot of wrongness would require explaining the difference between positive and negative liberty, the different between principles and the people who work to make them meaningful, different types of social movements, federalist government, international conventions and different country’s relationships to them, the interrelationship between representative and judicial branches of government, and the philosophical and legal history of both political and human rights, and frankly, I can’t fit those several semesters worth of lectures into a tumblr post. I can say, though, that you owe it to yourself, and to your fellow citizens, to do some reading or take some classes and learn how governments work.

I’ve lost a couple followers over this ask game but like, I don’t mind bc like, I can understand being like “ehh I’m a little grossed out by all this talk, sorry” and that’s totally chill and justified, as opposed to…other drama my ask games have started…

can i just say that it makes me really uncomfortable how people are making video compilations of “when boys hit girls back” or share videos of men beating women // boys beating girls with the commentary of “if you don’t want to get hit by a guy, don’t hit him first” 

men have been hitting women for years - you don’t need to make video compilations to appreciate that or to imply that it only happens when “they’re hitting back” and why are you so focused on justifying violence against women lol 

a cornered mouse will bite a cat - it doesn’t redefine the mouse as predator or the cat as prey. stop trying to come up with reasons for it to be justifiable for a man to hit a woman. stop trying to condone violence