MakingsOfGreatness

@chartyaowncourse

dafuq if I know...

475 posts

Can someone tell me what is up with this weird Woody picture showing up as my profile picture?

chartyaowncourse

PLEASE STOP USING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING TO DEBATE KINKS!!!!!

One of the main arguments against kinks mainly BDSM and DDLG is that these kinks will psychotically condition a person to get off on abuse or actual children. To further their point they cite the Pavlov studies.

But they leave out one major detail,

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD IN ALTERING AS ASPECT OF HUMAN SEXUALITY!!!!!!

Please stop reading one article and then act like you are an expert, you are embarrassing yourselves.

williamthegrahamcracker

We’re not saying that it will permanently alter sexuality - abuse isn’t a sexual orientation. But if say, once a month, you injected someone with endorphins and dopamine while showing them a violent scene, wouldn’t that make them less aversive to violence? You’re also straight up wrong about your assumption. Conditioning, especially operant conditioning, DOES affect sexual violence https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA222&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

chartyaowncourse

There is a difference between less averse to violence and more likely to commit violence.

For example, dopamine and endorphin are released when playing video games but that doesn’t mean the entire assassin’s creed fandom is going to go around killing people on the streets.

Dopamine and endorphin are released during stressful situations, and yes if you expose someone to a violent scene over a period of time, they will become less averse to it. But think about all the people in our society that we NEED to be averse to violence. Are you going to condemn the EMT who doesn’t freak out during a scene with a lot of blood? Not being averse to something bad does not make someone a horrible person, nor does it make them violent.

I want you to think, there are people in society such as first responders whose job it is to see and respond to horrible things, and then when it’s over eat and go to sleep as if nothing happened until the next call. Once a month? Try several times a week in some cases. (if you got a black cloud as a partner)

As for your link, you forgot one detail. Page 22 Line 7:

“In general, this research is based on small samples or case studies and is therefore not conclusive.”

williamthegrahamcracker

Video games do not provide nearly as strong of a positive reinforcement as an orgasm does. Video games also provide a clearer line between fiction and reality than porn, which tries to be as close to reality as possible, and kink, that happens in real life, are. Plus, fiction does shape people’s values. Obviously, cartoonish portrayals of violence don’t make people want to go out and recreate them, but if stories can teach people about nonviolence, respect, and justice, why not the other way around?

Once a month would be bad enough.

Hugging and ecstasy both release oxytocin. Most people would only get addicted to one. Sexual pleasure specifically evolved as a way to get humans to want to repeat whatever got them off. And we haven’t died out yet, so it works.

I really hope that if my arm gets ripped off, the paramedic that shows up won’t pop a boner. Their aversion to the horror the situation is to try and help the victim. Just like how someone should want to save rape and abusive victims instead of believing myths about them. Violent porn, much more than normal genres, makes people do the latter. This provides an issue for people who live under democracies since it affects how someone casts their ballot on issues such as marital rape or victims rights laws. According to the national sexual violence resource center, “holding attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of sexual violence and hostile towards women” along with cultural acceptance makes a rapist.

According to the captions on numerous pornblogs oh here, “women are fuckholes”, “sissy faggot cumsluts can’t say no”, and “n****** bitches need to be bred”. Viewing this stuff weekly when you’re 14 makes people want to rape and be racist. White nationalists recruit teens online all the time. Flirty fishing was an extremely successful way to get people to join a cult notorious for child sexual abuse.

Their conclusions still deserve some merit. They come from actual experiences of people dealing with sex offenders. There’s loads of people with the same jobs who say with more confidence that getting off to violence made their patients less sympathetic to victims.

These guys were conditioned to get boners from seeing peanut butter. The differential association and reinforcement theory provides a decent explanation for how peer groups can encourage violence. It builds off of how something paired with a positive stimulus becomes positive to the subject as well through generalization.

TL;DR

Sexual pleasure can work as a strong reinforcement. Getting pleasure from a violent scene makes people lose sympathy for victims. Even if laws prevent them from straight-up raping someone, it makes them more likely to support rapists and ignore consent.

Regularly enjoying an awful thing makes impressionable people awful as well.

chartyaowncourse

I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks porn is a reflection of reality is not a virgin. It’s not. Not in the slightest. Especially when it comes to rough sex.

Let’s take a controversial topic on Tumblr, anal sex. Many complain that fanfic writers do not portray anal sex very accurately and unfortunately that is very true and part of the reason for that, is porn. Anal sex is a common addition to rough sex in pornographic videos. Unfortunately though, it isnt portrsyed very accurately. Many of the models are lubed up and stop the scene multiple times to live up. You,judt,don’t see it in video edits. They also give themselves the preparation before the scene starts.

http://stylecaster.com/how-to-have-anal-sex/

As for crime and rape correlations, nothing has been conclusive. In today’s technology, internet porn is more easily accessed than ever. However, in a global scale there is no answer to how it affects rape and sexual violence. For example, rates of rape have increased in England and Wales since 2008. However, the largest consumer of porn (USA) has been experiencing a steady decrease in sexual crimes since 1990.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11376283/Does-watching-porn-really-turn-people-into-violent-criminals.html

Both of these are first world countries with easy access to the dark side of the internet, but they are experiencing very different phenomena.

As for your links to Flirty Fishing, I would check that again. The cult in question operated from 1974 to 1987, well before the use of the internet was widespread and had readily access to porn.

As for your other link, all it does is provide theories and no definitive conclusions. And I very much disagree with these theories. Their first theory explains why men have higher sex drives than women. However, they completely ignore the facts that libidos are subjective and not definitive between the sexes and the hormonal differences between men and women which plays a strong part in a person’s libido.

Also, the experiments used to measure women’s arousal used visual stimulation. Visual stimulation has been proven to be more effective in male arousal than in women. Women’s arousal is more stimulated by their other senses.

“Women respond differently to the same sexual stimuli. Some women feel repulsed by muscular, erotic male photos, and some are sexually attracted by emotional or lingual stimulation.[3 In other words, men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli, but women are more sexually aroused by concrete, auditory, olfactory, touch and emotionally relevant sexual stimulation.” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430

So my question to the ones who made these theories: How can you claim ro have accurate studies of male and female arousal when the methods you are using to induce arousal is only catering to the physiology of one of the groups you are studying? And how can you make conclusions of why men and women have different libidos while completely ignoring the differences in physiology?

Basically the argument the article made was that men reach orgasm more often so they become conditioned to have higher a libido and because women don’t reach orgasm that much, they aren’t conditioned to sexual arousal. Which is positively ridiculous.

Furthermore, instead of using biased methods to induce arousal why don’t they look into their theory of society affecting sexual arousal? Why not examine a society in which men were conditioned to NOT be sexually aroused? Many would say that such a society never existed, but they would be wrong.

Victorian England was a very bad time to be a young boy going through puberty. Syphilis was rampant and the cause at the time was believed to be caused by masturbation. So to protect their children, many parents put cruel metal contraptions over children’s genitals and even resorted to circumcision of both males and females. The former is still practiced today for that exact same reason.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/a-bakere28099s-dozen-old-fashioned-anti-erection-gadgets-for-men-with-illustrations/

But instead of looking critically through medical journals from back then, they ignore every piece of evidence they can so they can come to a specific conclusion. At that point, its nothing more than pseudoscience.

As your last link regarding generalization, the website is from a college class in Pakistan that cites the Quran as a source.

williamthegrahamcracker

I stated multiple times that violent porn just making people more likely to turn a blind eye to coercion or see people as objects is bad enough and that a full out violent rape is the worst case. I have a hard time believing that porn which uses slurs or presents situations like tricking someone into sex or beating them reveals nothing about the customer’s values. I never said regular porn causes rape. The porn study I linked specifically talk about violent porn. I know nudes aren’t harmful. And flirty fishing and getting aroused by peanut butter were meant to show that sexual stimuli work as behavioral reinforcers. The family international still exists, and my point was that sex encourages people to do things. When they used flirty fishing, it encouraged hundreds of thousands of people to join a cult. Did you read the entire page of the Penn State article? It paired a picture of a naked woman with a jar of peanut butter and then over time the subjects just got boners from just looking at the jar. This completely disproves your claim that conditioning never affected sexual interests. It’s even the classical pavlovian conditioning you talking about! Boo-boo a Muslim college quoted a Muslim book. I linked it so you could see the definition of generalization of stimuli - a concept by a non-muslim and non-pakistani. Here’s the definition from the encyclopedia Britannica “Generalization, in psychology, the tendency to respond in the same way to different but similar stimuli” since religious people are apparently not to be trusted. Then there’s contiguity “the sequential occurrence or proximity of stimulus and response, causing their association in the mind.” One group of people was wrong, so everyone after them must be wrong as long as you find them vaguely similar? What?

chartyaowncourse

At this point you are using assumptions as no study has proven such. In fact, its interesting as statistics show that its not men who are more likely to search to hardcore porn. It's actually women.

"In analytics released by popular porn site Pornhub, women are 113% more likely to search the term “hardcore” than men. They are also over 105% more likely to seek out genres of porn like “gangbang” and “rough sex.”

https://www.google.com/amp/fightthenewdrug.org/by-the-numbers-see-how-many-people-are-watching-porn-today/amp/

And considering the fact that women are far less likely to commit violent sexual crimes, there is no correlation between violent porn and sexual crimes.

I should also point out that the quote came from an anti porn website.

As for the peanut butter, it again speaks of the cherry picking of evidence from the researchere. Food play is a common activity during sex and peanut butter is a common tool for such play. So while researchers lead people believe they made participants get aroused by a non sexual object, it is far more likely that they are thinking about a certain kind of foreplay. The association with peanut butter is already present, so conditioning can not be credited for the arousal.

It would have been much more accurate if the researchers used something completely generic, like a specific tone of sound or a beep.

I never said religious people were not to be trusted. I simply said the Quran was not a reliable source when it came to the science behind sex.

As for generalization, its not an exact science. I already showed the evidence that men and women can react very different to stimuli. Also, I should point out that generalization is much more associated with stimuli that is not related to sex, such as loud noises, hunger, pain etc.

reblog this if u love being trans, love trans people, or hate cishets!

chartyaowncourse

Creates a post to bring posivity to gender identity...

Mocks people with a different sexuality and gender identity...

Makes perfect sense

lcynwanqbyjgnqkx

Professor Jordan Peterson, shortly after having his seminar crashed by dozens of noisy, disruptive students attempting to silence him for “hate speech” gives an incredible speech to the students who attended the seminar to hear him speak, encouraging them to educate themselves in order to defend logic and reasoning if needed, and concludes with the incredibly powerful line,

“Nothing’s more powerful than articulate speech! Nothing!”

chartyaowncourse

I very much disagree with him on a lot of things, specifically his views about women in the workforce but he absolutely has the right to say it and forcing someone to be silent achieves absolutely nothing.

the-real-ted-cruz

Reblog this if you are genuinely open to political dialogue with people you disagree with. This doesn’t exclude any single political group by the way. It doesn’t exclude SJWs, anti SJWs, liberals, conservatives, moderates, liberal feminists, radical feminists, anti feminists, men’s rights activists, alt righters, etc.. Basically, reblog if you are willing to have a conversation with people regardless of what your previously conceived opinions of them may be. (It’s important to note that having a conversation doesn’t mean you have to ultimately agree on anything. It just means hearing exactly what that person believes and why they believe it and explaining what you believe and why you believe that. It’s a conversation. It doesn’t have to be a debate). If you don’t want to have a conversation with people, that’s fine. This post is only for the people who do.

breaking news

gay relationships can be abusive

platonic relationships can be abusive

lesbians can be abusive

women can be abusive

i see a lot of people on here talk about abusive relationships and they never mention any of this, if anyone is treating you wrongly or you notice warning signs, leave. as much as tumblr would like to believe, not every member of a minority is a wonderful person nor is every woman, be careful and stay safe.

defend-norsecore

Only an SJW would pull this shit.

chartyaowncourse

I really hope this is a troll...

Providence, Rhode Island - WTF FUN FACTS

chartyaowncourse

I live about 15 minutes from Providence,and this is not true at all

chartyaowncourse

PLEASE STOP USING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING TO DEBATE KINKS!!!!!

One of the main arguments against kinks mainly BDSM and DDLG is that these kinks will psychotically condition a person to get off on abuse or actual children. To further their point they cite the Pavlov studies.

But they leave out one major detail,

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD IN ALTERING AS ASPECT OF HUMAN SEXUALITY!!!!!!

Please stop reading one article and then act like you are an expert, you are embarrassing yourselves.

williamthegrahamcracker

We’re not saying that it will permanently alter sexuality - abuse isn’t a sexual orientation. But if say, once a month, you injected someone with endorphins and dopamine while showing them a violent scene, wouldn’t that make them less aversive to violence? You’re also straight up wrong about your assumption. Conditioning, especially operant conditioning, DOES affect sexual violence https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA222&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

chartyaowncourse

There is a difference between less averse to violence and more likely to commit violence.

For example, dopamine and endorphin are released when playing video games but that doesn’t mean the entire assassin’s creed fandom is going to go around killing people on the streets.

Dopamine and endorphin are released during stressful situations, and yes if you expose someone to a violent scene over a period of time, they will become less averse to it. But think about all the people in our society that we NEED to be averse to violence. Are you going to condemn the EMT who doesn’t freak out during a scene with a lot of blood? Not being averse to something bad does not make someone a horrible person, nor does it make them violent.

I want you to think, there are people in society such as first responders whose job it is to see and respond to horrible things, and then when it’s over eat and go to sleep as if nothing happened until the next call. Once a month? Try several times a week in some cases. (if you got a black cloud as a partner)

As for your link, you forgot one detail. Page 22 Line 7:

“In general, this research is based on small samples or case studies and is therefore not conclusive.”

williamthegrahamcracker

Video games do not provide nearly as strong of a positive reinforcement as an orgasm does. Video games also provide a clearer line between fiction and reality than porn, which tries to be as close to reality as possible, and kink, that happens in real life, are. Plus, fiction does shape people’s values. Obviously, cartoonish portrayals of violence don’t make people want to go out and recreate them, but if stories can teach people about nonviolence, respect, and justice, why not the other way around?

Once a month would be bad enough.

Hugging and ecstasy both release oxytocin. Most people would only get addicted to one. Sexual pleasure specifically evolved as a way to get humans to want to repeat whatever got them off. And we haven’t died out yet, so it works.

I really hope that if my arm gets ripped off, the paramedic that shows up won’t pop a boner. Their aversion to the horror the situation is to try and help the victim. Just like how someone should want to save rape and abusive victims instead of believing myths about them. Violent porn, much more than normal genres, makes people do the latter. This provides an issue for people who live under democracies since it affects how someone casts their ballot on issues such as marital rape or victims rights laws. According to the national sexual violence resource center, “holding attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of sexual violence and hostile towards women” along with cultural acceptance makes a rapist.

According to the captions on numerous pornblogs oh here, “women are fuckholes”, “sissy faggot cumsluts can’t say no”, and “n****** bitches need to be bred”. Viewing this stuff weekly when you’re 14 makes people want to rape and be racist. White nationalists recruit teens online all the time. Flirty fishing was an extremely successful way to get people to join a cult notorious for child sexual abuse.

Their conclusions still deserve some merit. They come from actual experiences of people dealing with sex offenders. There’s loads of people with the same jobs who say with more confidence that getting off to violence made their patients less sympathetic to victims.

These guys were conditioned to get boners from seeing peanut butter. The differential association and reinforcement theory provides a decent explanation for how peer groups can encourage violence. It builds off of how something paired with a positive stimulus becomes positive to the subject as well through generalization.

TL;DR

Sexual pleasure can work as a strong reinforcement. Getting pleasure from a violent scene makes people lose sympathy for victims. Even if laws prevent them from straight-up raping someone, it makes them more likely to support rapists and ignore consent.

Regularly enjoying an awful thing makes impressionable people awful as well.

chartyaowncourse

I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks porn is a reflection of reality is not a virgin. It's not. Not in the slightest. Especially when it comes to rough sex.

Let's take a controversial topic on Tumblr, anal sex. Many complain that fanfic writers do not portray anal sex very accurately and unfortunately that is very true and part of the reason for that, is porn. Anal sex is a common addition to rough sex in pornographic videos. Unfortunately though, it isnt portrsyed very accurately. Many of the models are lubed up and stop the scene multiple times to live up. You,judt,don't see it in video edits. They also give themselves the preparation before the scene starts.

http://stylecaster.com/how-to-have-anal-sex/

As for crime and rape correlations, nothing has been conclusive. In today's technology, internet porn is more easily accessed than ever. However, in a global scale there is no answer to how it affects rape and sexual violence. For example, rates of rape have increased in England and Wales since 2008. However, the largest consumer of porn (USA) has been experiencing a steady decrease in sexual crimes since 1990.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11376283/Does-watching-porn-really-turn-people-into-violent-criminals.html

Both of these are first world countries with easy access to the dark side of the internet, but they are experiencing very different phenomena.

As for your links to Flirty Fishing, I would check that again. The cult in question operated from 1974 to 1987, well before the use of the internet was widespread and had readily access to porn.

As for your other link, all it does is provide theories and no definitive conclusions. And I very much disagree with these theories. Their first theory explains why men have higher sex drives than women. However, they completely ignore the facts that libidos are subjective and not definitive between the sexes and the hormonal differences between men and women which plays a strong part in a person's libido.

Also, the experiments used to measure women's arousal used visual stimulation. Visual stimulation has been proven to be more effective in male arousal than in women. Women's arousal is more stimulated by their other senses.

"Women respond differently to the same sexual stimuli. Some women feel repulsed by muscular, erotic male photos, and some are sexually attracted by emotional or lingual stimulation.[3 In other words, men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli, but women are more sexually aroused by concrete, auditory, olfactory, touch and emotionally relevant sexual stimulation." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430

So my question to the ones who made these theories: How can you claim ro have accurate studies of male and female arousal when the methods you are using to induce arousal is only catering to the physiology of one of the groups you are studying? And how can you make conclusions of why men and women have different libidos while completely ignoring the differences in physiology?

Basically the argument the article made was that men reach orgasm more often so they become conditioned to have higher a libido and because women don't reach orgasm that much, they aren't conditioned to sexual arousal. Which is positively ridiculous.

Furthermore, instead of using biased methods to induce arousal why don't they look into their theory of society affecting sexual arousal? Why not examine a society in which men were conditioned to NOT be sexually aroused? Many would say that such a society never existed, but they would be wrong.

Victorian England was a very bad time to be a young boy going through puberty. Syphilis was rampant and the cause at the time was believed to be caused by masturbation. So to protect their children, many parents put cruel metal contraptions over children's genitals and even resorted to circumcision of both males and females. The former is still practiced today for that exact same reason.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/a-bakere28099s-dozen-old-fashioned-anti-erection-gadgets-for-men-with-illustrations/

But instead of looking critically through medical journals from back then, they ignore every piece of evidence they can so they can come to a specific conclusion. At that point, its nothing more than pseudoscience.

As your last link regarding generalization, the website is from a college class in Pakistan that cites the Quran as a source.

i’m back :)))))

chartyaowncourse

PLEASE STOP USING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING TO DEBATE KINKS!!!!!

One of the main arguments against kinks mainly BDSM and DDLG is that these kinks will psychotically condition a person to get off on abuse or actual children. To further their point they cite the Pavlov studies.

But they leave out one major detail,

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AS AN EFFECTIVE METHOD IN ALTERING AS ASPECT OF HUMAN SEXUALITY!!!!!!

Please stop reading one article and then act like you are an expert, you are embarrassing yourselves.

williamthegrahamcracker

We’re not saying that it will permanently alter sexuality - abuse isn’t a sexual orientation. But if say, once a month, you injected someone with endorphins and dopamine while showing them a violent scene, wouldn’t that make them less aversive to violence? You’re also straight up wrong about your assumption. Conditioning, especially operant conditioning, DOES affect sexual violence https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA222&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

chartyaowncourse

There is a difference between less averse to violence and more likely to commit violence.

For example, dopamine and endorphin are released when playing video games but that doesn’t mean the entire assassin’s creed fandom is going to go around killing people on the streets.

Dopamine and endorphin are released during stressful situations, and yes if you expose someone to a violent scene over a period of time, they will become less averse to it. But think about all the people in our society that we NEED to be averse to violence. Are you going to condemn the EMT who doesn’t freak out during a scene with a lot of blood? Not being averse to something bad does not make someone a horrible person, nor does it make them violent.

I want you to think, there are people in society such as first responders whose job it is to see and respond to horrible things, and then when it’s over eat and go to sleep as if nothing happened until the next call. Once a month? Try several times a week in some cases. (if you got a black cloud as a partner)

As for your link, you forgot one detail. Page 22 Line 7:

“In general, this research is based on small samples or case studies and is therefore not conclusive.”

Former Enbridge worker talks about how oil companies covered up oil spills and people's deaths. PLEASE BOOST THIS LIKE PEOPLE’S LIVES DEPEND ON IT!!!! BECAUSE IT DOES!!!!

darkempressinfinitemind

I don’t feel bad...

when businesses run by non-Black POC, like Asians or Hispanics go out of business in primarily Black neighborhoods and communities. A lot of them purposefully set up shop there because they know they can prey/degrade on the residents there but still get customers, because they sell necessary items. They call us “nigger” and look down on us like dirt and swindle us, but still want our business. That’s why I’m so happy Black people aren’t taking that shit anymore. Don’t give them business, close their asses down.

chartyaowncourse

*Banging my head against the wall because people thinking shit like this is OK*

Do you not realize what you are saying?????

Only black people are allowed to have businesses in primarily black communities?? Have you completely lost your mind????? And you are encouraging people to not do business with them simply because of their race?? WTF is wrong with you??!!

And why the hell did it become OK for people to say shit like this about other races. When I made a one sentence comparison about comparing the Holocaust to the native genocides I was called out dozens of times for being racist. Yet shit like this is deemed acceptable???

Tumblr and you yourself, get your fucking head out of your ass.

darkempressinfinitemind

First of all, please that is not racism. Second of all, of you conduct business in a neighborhood of a primarily different race and do so respectfully of those actual people, then yes, run your business whoever you are. But they Non-Black POC that own businesses that I and the ppl in my neighborhood have encounter and still do, very much look down on and talk badly about while they engage in business with us. It’s not too much to ask for respect and decency when I’m paying for your products and services. And to assume that were supposed to allow businesses that conduct prejudice practices to to run in our neighborhoods is very ignorant.

So, yes. I’m not going to support someone who degrades me and my race, thats motherfucking common sense.

chartyaowncourse

So, one shop owner is an asshole and you target all businesses in black communities not run by black people?

Yes, honey. That IS racism.

darkempressinfinitemind

I don’t feel bad...

when businesses run by non-Black POC, like Asians or Hispanics go out of business in primarily Black neighborhoods and communities. A lot of them purposefully set up shop there because they know they can prey/degrade on the residents there but still get customers, because they sell necessary items. They call us “nigger” and look down on us like dirt and swindle us, but still want our business. That’s why I’m so happy Black people aren’t taking that shit anymore. Don’t give them business, close their asses down.

chartyaowncourse

*Banging my head against the wall because people thinking shit like this is OK*

Do you not realize what you are saying?????

Only black people are allowed to have businesses in primarily black communities?? Have you completely lost your mind????? And you are encouraging people to not do business with them simply because of their race?? WTF is wrong with you??!!

And why the hell did it become OK for people to say shit like this about other races. When I made a one sentence comparison about comparing the Holocaust to the native genocides I was called out dozens of times for being racist. Yet shit like this is deemed acceptable???

Tumblr and you yourself, get your fucking head out of your ass.

#racism #tw racism

I’ll just say these few words on this whole situation, alright. White people do not have the ultimate say on what is whitewashing and what is not. This includes white Hispanic people and white-passing people, which means, myself included, because none of those groups experience colorism that whitewashing stems from. I am only partially Mexican and mostly white-passing and frankly have more room to speak from the perspective as an Arab. However, many dark-skinned Hispanic people who do suffer from colorism see issue with the image portrayed when comparing it with how dark she is in the original leak. And its not up to any other group to say that it’s a “reach” or that people are looking for issues because that is literally talking over the effected group as well as implying that people of color somehow enjoy and instigate being effected by racism. Blizzard has had a long history of like, super forreal racism, whitewashing, and stereotyping and people who are made uncomfortable by that should be able to speak up. All I did was make an edit for a certain group of people I maybe don’t completely belong to, but do relate to and try to listen to, so that they can feel more comfortable with the image and have it more relatable to the real life group of people Sombra belongs to/represents. And the fact that a very large amount of these people give my edit thumbs-up should go to show that there is a valid underlying problem somewhere. As for dark-skinned Hispanic people on the other side of the argument: that is an intra-community issue to be discussed, there are things to be said for both “sides”, but in the end when a more complex intra-community issue like this pops up that can be effected by things like cultural differences (what country they live in), internalized racism, and fear of speaking against the “white word” somebody who does not belong in the discussion can not use it as a one-sided trump-card when they only listen to the side more convenient to themselves. Contrary to popular belief, these issues don’t come from nothing, for the discomfort to be there in the first place there has to be some kind of problem somewhere. To put it bluntly in terms of the image itself: only a very small amount of notes I’ve gotten on it have been negative compared to positive, which I am thankful for, but if you are so bothered by an edit darkening her skin somewhat that you insist that it is disgusting, less attractive, vocal in how much you think it is unnecessary, or you believe that the overwhelming majority of poc are just “reaching”, you should re-evaluate.

chartyaowncourse

Two problems with this argument.

1. There light skinned non white Hispanics

2. There are dark skinned white Hispanics

starcallers-followblog

I already said a bit on white-passing Hispanics, they are not effected by colorism and whitewashing is an issue that effects dark skinned people vastly more than anybody else. It’s not really somebody’s place to speak as an ultimate authority if they are only marginally effected by the issue at hand. Although certainly white and white-passing Hispanic people are valid and still effected by racism, this particular issue isn’t really their domain to claim authority on over dark skinned Hispanic people. As for your second point, sorry but idgi. If your so is so dark that you are effected by colorism then you’re probably not white? The only way I could see this happening is if a mid-toned mixed race person identified as white, which is admittedly an ambiguous area. But otherwise, this statement doesnt make much sense. Either way, I don’t see how either point invalidates my argument.

chartyaowncourse

This is EXACTLY what invalidates your argument because you just proved that you don't really know much about European Hispanics.

EVERY group has light and dark skinned people. Including Europeans. A person can have dark skin, dark eyes and dark thick hair and still be predominantly European.

That being said, yes their are multiple Hispanic regions in Europe outside the Iberian Peninsula that have mixed race populations, (Not just Spain. Bet you didn't know that to, the term Hispanic covers Portuguese people as well)

Regions like the Azores and Cape Verde are considered Hispanic but at the same time, many Cape Verdeans are predominantly African. And Azorean people tend to have darker skin than their mainland cousins due to its history of being a former slave port. As a result many have some European and African features. But the lineage is impossible to trace so many just don't identify as African.

That, and you are COMPLETELY ignoring that a the main identifying traits of Hispanic people that lead to racism are NOT THEIR SKIN COLOR!!!

It's their names, and their language.

I am darker skinned, but that's because I'm mixed with native and again, my dad is from the Azores and he IS biracial. And the few times I have had racial comments towards me was when I was speaking Portuguese in public. Everyone has heard it,

"This is America! Speak English!"

What about discrimination? Odds are you in your life haven't been turned down from entering a business because of your skin color. However, what about other forms of discrimination. Jobs, apartments, bank loans? Things that are filed over paperwork where people don't see your skin color. It's much easier to discriminate then, especially Hispanics.

Because it doesn't matter if you are a white Hispanic or Latinx or what. If you have a Hispanic name, you can be discriminated against. And that is how most Hispanics face racism.

You want to talk about racism? Talk about all of it!!! Not just the tiny part that Tumblr approves of.

I’ll just say these few words on this whole situation, alright. White people do not have the ultimate say on what is whitewashing and what is not. This includes white Hispanic people and white-passing people, which means, myself included, because none of those groups experience colorism that whitewashing stems from. I am only partially Mexican and mostly white-passing and frankly have more room to speak from the perspective as an Arab. However, many dark-skinned Hispanic people who do suffer from colorism see issue with the image portrayed when comparing it with how dark she is in the original leak. And its not up to any other group to say that it’s a “reach” or that people are looking for issues because that is literally talking over the effected group as well as implying that people of color somehow enjoy and instigate being effected by racism. Blizzard has had a long history of like, super forreal racism, whitewashing, and stereotyping and people who are made uncomfortable by that should be able to speak up. All I did was make an edit for a certain group of people I maybe don’t completely belong to, but do relate to and try to listen to, so that they can feel more comfortable with the image and have it more relatable to the real life group of people Sombra belongs to/represents. And the fact that a very large amount of these people give my edit thumbs-up should go to show that there is a valid underlying problem somewhere. As for dark-skinned Hispanic people on the other side of the argument: that is an intra-community issue to be discussed, there are things to be said for both “sides”, but in the end when a more complex intra-community issue like this pops up that can be effected by things like cultural differences (what country they live in), internalized racism, and fear of speaking against the “white word” somebody who does not belong in the discussion can not use it as a one-sided trump-card when they only listen to the side more convenient to themselves. Contrary to popular belief, these issues don’t come from nothing, for the discomfort to be there in the first place there has to be some kind of problem somewhere. To put it bluntly in terms of the image itself: only a very small amount of notes I’ve gotten on it have been negative compared to positive, which I am thankful for, but if you are so bothered by an edit darkening her skin somewhat that you insist that it is disgusting, less attractive, vocal in how much you think it is unnecessary, or you believe that the overwhelming majority of poc are just “reaching”, you should re-evaluate.

chartyaowncourse

Two problems with this argument.

1. There light skinned non white Hispanics

2. There are dark skinned white Hispanics

littleouranimagines

okay honest question. I hear a lot about white people participating in other cultures and how they shouldn’t because it isn’t their own and stuff but what if a white child is adopted by a PoC family and is taught and participated in their culture their entire lives? As an adult would it still be cultural appropriation or??

chartyaowncourse

No it wouldn't be. If that person is adopted into a certain community then no

MakingsOfGreatness @chartyaowncourse - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag