Something clever

seriously, pretend I said something really witty.

[thehuxler]

I could have fixed The Beatles. I need four collars and a cattle prod.

[thehuxler]

Oh you're a Paul McCartney fan? Name every man he slept with in 1967

[thehuxler]

Oh you're a Paul McCartney fan? Name every man he slept with in 1967

[thehuxler]

In your personal opinion do you think there have been times Paul lied to the public for whatever reason? He gives off unreliable narrator vibes sometimes..

I think it would be easier to answer what times I think Paul told the truth 💀

[thehuxler]

In your personal opinion do you think there have been times Paul lied to the public for whatever reason? He gives off unreliable narrator vibes sometimes..

I think it would be easier to answer what times I think Paul told the truth 💀

[thehuxler]

Why do I gotta fight AO3 every time to get it to put my story at the top of the tag

[thehuxler]

"100% of the time the people who get mad at me for not writing their pairing or their character the way they want"

They absolutely want John to take the place of Paul in your fics. And your fics are pretty popular so they're mad. This level of vitriol in fandom in pretty much always because of shipping.

It's like getting mad at somebody for baking themselves a chocolate cake because YOU like vanilla. Like fine, more cake for me!

[thehuxler]

Would never say no to a new chapter quicker! I'm so excited!! Also noticed the MPreg tag that you added to FOWS...👀

Super omegas could be classified as "dangerously fertile"

[thehuxler]

I've noticed a pattern. Many Lennon fans will say, "Yeah, we know he was abusive. Nobody is denying that. Stop bringing it up."

But the moment someone posts actual quotes from the women who knew him describing violence, coercion, or sexual assault, the response changes. Suddenly it's about something I never said. "John Lennon wasn't a rapist," or "this is out of context," "you're obsessed, you must want to fuck him" or "you're a terrible person who writes terrible things."

So which is it?

If everyone already acknowledges the abuse, why does quoting the people who described it provoke such hostility? Why are the women treated as credible only until someone cites them directly concerning their accounts of how John treated them?

What's especially disturbing is that the focus often shifts away from the evidence and onto the person presenting it. Apparently compiling statements from people who knew Lennon is unacceptable, but attacking the compiler is not.

That's why, in hindsight, it's difficult to believe the outrage over my AIDS joke was ever solely about the joke. Again and again, people who claimed to be concerned about my behavior eventually revealed that what truly bothered them was my refusal to participate in a sanitized version of Lennon's history.

If abuse is acknowledged only in the abstract, but anyone who discusses it in concrete terms becomes a target, then what is really being acknowledged?

Either these accounts matter or they don't. You cannot claim to accept the history while attacking everyone who refuses to look away from it.

[thehuxler]

I've noticed a pattern. Many Lennon fans will say, "Yeah, we know he was abusive. Nobody is denying that. Stop bringing it up."

But the moment someone posts actual quotes from the women who knew him describing violence, coercion, or sexual assault, the response changes. Suddenly it's about something I never said. "John Lennon wasn't a rapist," or "this is out of context," "you're obsessed, you must want to fuck him" or "you're a terrible person who writes terrible things."

So which is it?

If everyone already acknowledges the abuse, why does quoting the people who described it provoke such hostility? Why are the women treated as credible only until someone cites them directly?

What's especially disturbing is that the focus often shifts away from the evidence and onto the person presenting it. Apparently compiling statements from people who knew Lennon is unacceptable, but attacking the compiler is not.

That's why, in hindsight, it's difficult to believe the outrage over my AIDS joke was ever solely about the joke. Again and again, people who claimed to be concerned about my behavior eventually revealed that what truly bothered them was my refusal to participate in a sanitized version of Lennon's history.

If abuse is acknowledged only in the abstract, but anyone who discusses it in concrete terms becomes a target, then what is really being acknowledged?

Either these accounts matter or they don't. You cannot claim to accept the history while attacking everyone who refuses to look away from it.

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

But what is Tumblr trying to tell me?

[thehuxler]

If you are going to believe every anon hate you receive is from me, then there is nothing I can do that will ever convince you to leave me alone. You've invented your own justification for the things you are doing--any action by a third party rightfully insensed at the way you are acting you will use as further proof that posting about killing me off anon on main is in some way morally right. Because of that, my conduct and actions don't matter. Regardless of what I do these people will never leave me alone. They've invented the boogeyman they need to carry out the harassment campaign that is, in some way, providing them pleasure. I won't be defending myself anymore. I've made my peace. I can only conduct myself in a way that I can look back on and not feel ashamed for the things I have done.

With that in mind, we will eventually resume posting about Paul McCartney's blown out hole.

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

I just read a story about a guy detained by ice whose adult son has a dehabilitating illness and he, the father, was allowed to stay past his visa to care for him. The father was detained by ice last year and his son died recently and the father was denied the chance to attend the funeral.

And it makes me think back to some racist paper i read years ago about the intelligence of inmates, dog whistle for black people, that cited a study that low intelligence people struggle to emphasize and that cruelty is a trait of the unintelligent.

And they tried to frame it, in the paper, that being cruel and committing crimes, etc is a sign of low intellect. And while the racially motivated points don't hold water, I see how gleeful people are about ice doing what they're doing.

And then I dig into what these people say and think, and I do agree with one point.

Cruelty is a trait of the unintelligent. These people are not burdened by wisdom and are terrified by the many things they don't understand.

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

Dud you miss me?! Probably not there's like two of you but like an annoying alley cat or a fledgling cult leader it doesn't matter how many people I'm bothering, only that I sing.

So, who wants to start a cult. I'm still hammering down the ideology but pizza and not going to work are probably gonna be some core tenets of our new faith.

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

I am dying of little kid disease but even I can see that John and Paul were touching parts frfr

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

Happy Honda days to those who celebrate! And a merry Toyotathon!

[ilikestoeatspaghetti]

Happy birthday jesus! Sorry about the, well, the everything. And a shout out to my favorite weirdo! The jesus chap can't be so bad cause he made Paul a bottom for you.

@thehuxler