Silver Tongue

cetitan:

dissidiawol:

im sorry but everyone reblogging daft punk music today as if they just fucking passed away is so funny

one of them exploded. not funny

slab-o-meat:

slab-o-meat:

i know the memes and the jokes have all come and gone but what was UP with this guy

image

fuck everyone on this post besides whoever said this guy was finn’s ex

entryno17:
“”

captainlordauditor:

greelin:

responses to the question “you got a name?”, all of which i have used, especially whilst sleep-deprived and/or not paying attention

  • “i do!” followed by me not saying my name, ever, at any point
  • “do you?”
  • “i have many” no idea what i meant w/ that one like, sincerely, and that was probably deeply unnerving or at least moderately unnerving
  • “possibly? who knows”
  • “that sure is.. a question. that has an answer”
  • “yeah..” followed by uncomfortable laughter

op is surrounded by fae

diddly-darn-ghost:

wintermoth:

so guess who’s getting dragged so hard on twitter that he’s trending


image

lmao there’s now a hashtag for artists to promote their own art while simultaneously dunking on him

image

paindragon:

the-final-sif:

I try to stay away from a lot of fandom discourse, but since I’ve been seeing this on my dash again and in tags, I feel the need to make a statement on this, particularly for any young fans who follow me that might get drawn into this mindset.

Stay away from purity culture. Warn your friends away from it too, if you see them starting to fall for it. It’s very easy to get drawn into it

Almost always, it starts with one of three roots, pedophilia, incest and/or abuse. Usually it’s pedophilia. Funnily enough, that’s also what congress usually uses to try to justify passing bills that undermine online privacy & security. Because it’s an easy, extreme target, and when people attempt to argue against it, it’s nice and easy to say “Oh so you like pedophilia” rather then actually engaging with their argument.

The logic goes like this, although there’s many forms of it.

  1. “Pedophilia is bad.” -> Obviously, you agree with this. You’re a reasonable person, and the idea that anyone would do something like that to a child is horrible. This is a normal human reaction.
  2. “Because pedophilia is bad, all fictional explorations of it must be equally bad.” -> Here you might hesitate, but it adds up, doesn’t it? The thought of pedophilia in any context probably gives you a bad feeling, that makes you inclined to go along with this logic. 
  3. “Anyone who creates content with a fictional exploration of pedophilia is also bad.” -> Maybe you pause here, or maybe you don’t. But still, it adds up, it’s a very easy flow. After all, we’ve decided that that is Bad, so why would anyone Good want to create something like that?
  4. “Since people who create content with a fictional exploration of pedophilia are just as bad as people who engage in pedophilia in real life, it’s okay to harm them.” -> Here’s where you might pause again. The argument might not win you over entirely, you might not be willing to do harm yourself, but you may be a lot more willing to turn a blind eye to harm being done to someone. Or to consider it ‘justified’.
  5. The pattern now repeats for anything else that’s considered “morally impure”, and “pedophilia” is expanded and expanded, often to ridiculous points, such as merely shipping two underage characters. “Abuse” becomes any ship that the person pushing doesn’t like, for any reason. And so on and so forth.


This is the foundation of “anti” culture, and it’s important to be aware of it so you can catch this false equivocation. Fictional explorations of something, are not the same as the thing itself. Fictional explorations are fiction. The characters are not real people. There is no actual harm being done. Equating fake harm and real harm is a dangerous, slippery slope, which leads us to fundamentally flawed ideas of moral purity. It’s a form of controlling people & making them feel guilty for their very thoughts, rather than holding people accountable for their actions. 

A very handy trick for when you encounter this sort of argument, is to replace whatever the selected purity term is with murder. After all, we can all agree that murder is bad, but at the same time, we understand that a murder in a book =/= a murder in real life.

Let’s see that argument again, shall we?

  1. “Murder is bad”
  2. “Because murder is bad, all fictional explorations of it must be equally bad.”

  3. “Anyone who creates content with a fictional exploration of murder is also bad.”

  4. “Since people who create fictional explorations of murder are just as bad as the people who commit murder in real life, it’s okay to harm them.”


Hopefully, it’s now easy to see why the above argument is fundamentally flawed.

Keep your eye out for purity culture in your fandom spaces, and when you see it, refuse to engage with it. Warn your friends if you see them falling into the same traps, although try to be kind about it; this is a very easy thought pattern to fall into. I don’t recommend trying to argue/debate anti’s. The attention only feeds them. Block them instead. Don’t let people control or shame you for what you create or consume, and don’t control or shame others for what they create or consume.

Also, as a note, let me be clear about something. If you are uncomfortable with any of the above discussed things, or anything in general in fiction (ie, underage ships, murder, incest, abuse, penguins, needles, etc), that’s perfectly fine (it’s also called a squick, for those that haven’t heard that term before). Absolutely control your fandom experience by blocking people, filtering tags, unfollowing, etc. However, just because you are uncomfortable with something, does not give you the right to control other people. Other people have no right to control what content you create or consume, and you have no right to do that to them either. 

Okay?

I think there are two other important arguments antis use that should be debunked. They will say that fiction should be censored if it could either 1) be used/leveraged towards harm or 2) causes harm itself. 

The typical example of the first argument is usually about abusers using fiction that depicts pedophilia or other abuse in order to groom a victim. It is true that abusers have used fiction as part of their grooming tactics. Antis will say that this means that that fiction should be censored to prevent this. This is a bad argument for two reasons. First, it misplaces the blame for abuse from the abuser to the tool/method of the abuser. Second, it misunderstands the fact that even “vanilla” or “non-problematic” things are used by abusers as part of their grooming tactics. 

The typical example of the second argument is usually about traumatized people being triggered, “re-traumatized”, or otherwise very distressed about certain fiction. It is true that certain fiction can cause real emotional/psychological harm to certain people. Antis will say that any such harmful fiction should be censored for this reason. This is a bad argument for two reasons. First, whether a piece of fiction is harmful is dependent upon the individual, i.e. no fiction universally causes harm. Second, things that are considered “problematic” are not the only things that are potentially triggering–anything can potentially be a trigger, no matter how “innocuous” it is to people without that trigger. When it comes to topics that are more frequently distressing/triggering, the solution to preventing harm is to use tags/warnings so people can avoid topics that will harm them. 

madelynartz:

le-poofe:

image
image
image

I’m really glad you guys liked that last one! Before I posted that palette swap, I thought about doing a similar thing with clothes! I can’t decide which one I like more between Wakko’s style and Dot’s style, but I do love the banter in Wakko’s style

image
image

These are so beautiful I-

I love your design choices for them too- also the way their flowers represent the other’s color-

failbaby:

image
image
image

new coping mechanism: accuse your dad of unsolved murders