mr pommeroy

she/her - 20

[babyindeath]

Lenny in furs

[selftrepanning]

[mr-pommeroy]

Trans Trans

Cash Cash

Simple

Safe

Convenient

[mr-pommeroy]

[principaliteas]

https://www.tumblr.com/decolonize-the-left/738931282363432960/standing-together-movement-wikipedia

This is about criticizing the Standing Together movement. What's your thoughts on this?

(please don't attack OP.)

i'm not going to get into everything; low-effort posts don't deserve efforted rebuttals. but...

how is advocating for equality between israelis & palestinians (ST's mission) counterproductive to the movement for palestinian liberation, unless you believe they should live inequally, only with israelis being treated the way palestinians are currently treated?

i doubt OP has actually conducted any research into ST's work. they vehemently oppose israeli occupation & the movement isn't only composed of israeli liberals (as they seem to be implying). standing together are an israeli-palestinian movement, with joint israeli & palestinian leadership. they don't exist to serve the interests of just israelis or just palestinians; they truly advocate for equality. & it's very telling when people reject that concept.

the "hamas changed their antisemitic charter so they can't be antisemitic UwU" argument is bizarre. i don't trust anybody who believes a person/group only needs to say "i don't hate [x]!" to prove their acceptance of [x]. nobody gets to decide if they are/aren't bigoted on behalf of a marginalised group, especially when their actions directly contradict their words.

finally, i'd like to call attention to the fact that in OP's strange attempt to avoid sounding like they're even remotely invested in the future of israelis, they delivered a hilariously antisemitic blanket statement equating jews with israel:

you don't need to say "jewish people", dear. the israeli government doesn't represent all of us; not all jews live in israel & not all israelis are jewish. you can just say "israelis".

conclusion: bad post.

[bgm05]

[xoxokirby]

anyway, here’s a list of openly LGBTQ+ video essayists who do actually cite their sources for you to enjoy!

(this is putting them in the broadest of categories. there is overlap in all of them, and these are just off the top of my head so please feel free to add more.)

social issues

khadija mbowe

philosophy tube

elliot sang

broadway/theater

wait in the wings

film

kyle kallgren bhh

princess weekes

anime/animation

basic boi

lines in motion

negative legend

gaming

amelie doree

katcher eye

a lil bit of everything

talis the introvert

cj the x

hbomberguy (duh)

[mr-pommeroy]

I want to add some that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

PaperDawN makes mostly gaming and sometimes other media related videos.

PaperDawN

Hey potential viewers! My name is Richie (or DawN) and I make video game videos on youtube, like every other human being on this planet. Bu

For political content there's Soulbunni.

Soulbunni

Black Queer Leftist Art Video Essayist Instagram @soulbunni Twitter @soulbunni

Also for archeological content there's Trey the explainer.

TREY the Explainer

Explain Everything...and more! This channel's goal is to help educate the average person on science topics. I will mostly examine biology, z

[lizardsfromspace]

For a certain type of online leftist, "the Revolution" is essentially a secular rapture: the Revolution is going to happen, we know not the day or date, and we don't need to do anything to make the Revolution happen, certainly not real-life activism, just believe the right things before it happens and fixes everything.

Just like how evangelicals oppose doing anything to improve the Earth before the rapture comes, these types believe half-measures are pointless. "We DON'T need [change that would benefit many people right now], we NEED a REVOLUTION!" We don't need gradual change; all at once or not at all, and in fact, it's suspect if you are working on those smaller-scale changes. But since all these people do is tweet and do podcasts they're uh, not exactly forcing the end anytime soon

[despazito]

Actually your society is the freaks for shooting everything that moves and burning half your "nature reserves" every year so that upperclass dandies can eat leaded pheasant. North Americans are the well adjusted ones here, your country has become a desolate suburban lawn in island form

[elamimax]

This is causing a bit of a stir on Twitter but:

if we consider a door to be a kind of mechanical device, there must be an on state and an off state.

so.

IF A DOOR IS OPEN, IS IT ON OR OFF?

on

off

Voting ended onSep 10, 2023

[fractiousrvt]

For me it must be off. The purpose of a door is to block access to a space. If the space was meant to be accessed at all times you would just have an opening with no door in it. When a door is closed it is performing its function of blocking access. When you open it, you are turning off this function, aren't you?

[demilypyro]

A door's function isn't to block access, that's what a fucking wall is for. Doors open, that's like the one thing they do.

[colemckenzies]

finding out that you now like a food you always hated as a kid is so exciting. now i too get to experience the joys of Coleslaw

[assiraphales]

if I was a demon I would genuinely gnaw my arm off in jealousy because not only did crowley get free roaming access of earth (aka not stuck in a dirty grimy dimly lit basement) but he got to eat food and get drunk and wear nice clothes and take showers and not have bugs coming out of his mouth and a bf and even when he consorted with an agent of heaven and got booted they STILL offered him his job back and a raise. meanwhile I’ve been stamping papers for the last 5000 years under a flickering light in a puddle chugging hellfire

[harrytheehottie]

[robotpussy]

time sensitive!

im making a smaller and shorter post about this because clearly the other one is too long and people are just ignoring it.

to summarise: im in film school, its private, therefore the government will not pay the full fee amount when they usually would for a university that isn't private. i got in a scholarship and i worked really fucking hard to get in with no support whatsoever. my university refuses to let me pay off the fees after i graduate, in fact i cant graduate unless i pay them something. i have no savings and i set up a gfm in may as the due date was june 1st. my uni has extended the deadline to july 27th instead.

all the evidence that i am actually attending this school, i got in on a scholarship and that the deadlines have been extended are all linked here

i need £5.6k and i havent even reached £1k yet. (right now i am £869)i set the gfm up in may and haven't really gotten far.

the link to the gfm is here - i have until July 27th and im getting really desperate now

[robotpussy]

i've raised £1,852 so far (thank you so much) but again i don't have a lot of time left - pretty much just a week atp

[logomantic-deactivated20230714]

i think some of y'all really need to learn that you are only entitled to safety, not to feelings of safety. you need to recognize that your feelings are fallible, shaped by your cultural upbringing and intrinsic biases, and that they are not always reflective of reality.

for example, imagine you've been raised in a society that violently stigmatizes drug use, mental illness and homelessness. you're walking down the street, and you see someone who is disheveled, talking to themselves or yelling, pacing, maybe even smoking or injecting drugs. you feel unsafe, even though this person poses no threat to you. you call the police, even though no harm has been done and a reasonable assessment of the situation can tell you that no harm will be done. the police come and arrest that person, and although your right to safety was never violated, you've now put someone else in harm's way. you've traded their right to physical safety for your own perception of safety, and that is morally indefensible. that cannot be explained away by saying that you deserve to be safe in public, because you were never unsafe in the first place.

[logomantic-deactivated20230714]

i think some of y'all really need to learn that you are only entitled to safety, not to feelings of safety. you need to recognize that your feelings are fallible, shaped by your cultural upbringing and intrinsic biases, and that they are not always reflective of reality.

for example, imagine you've been raised in a society that violently stigmatizes drug use, mental illness and homelessness. you're walking down the street, and you see someone who is disheveled, talking to themselves or yelling, pacing, maybe even smoking or injecting drugs. you feel unsafe, even though this person poses no threat to you. you call the police, even though no harm has been done and a reasonable assessment of the situation can tell you that no harm will be done. the police come and arrest that person, and although your right to safety was never violated, you've now put someone else in harm's way. you've traded their right to physical safety for your own perception of safety, and that is morally indefensible. that cannot be explained away by saying that you deserve to be safe in public, because you were never unsafe in the first place.

[acefool]

I think one of the biggest things that aggravates my rejection sensitive dysphoria (RSD) more than anything is when I meet people who are perfectly nice to other people to their face but will later talk about how much they hate that other person when they aren’t in the room.

No, you didn’t say that you hate me. You said you hate this other person that you treat to their face the same way you treat me. I don’t trust you now. And all of your behaviours are now locked in my core memory to be recognized in anyone who behaves the same way as someone who hates me regardless of whether they actually do.