Everybody Hates Nang @nangbaby - Tumblr Blog

If safety in your ideal society is entirely based on care by networks of affinity, and does not provide care for people who are not liked by anybody, then your society is actually even worse than the situation we are in now.

Pissing off people close to you or over-exhausting your social network or isolating yourself is often an inherent part of many mental health problems, addictions, etc. By the time people need care the most, they have often lost all their networks of affinity, and with some bad luck, any of us could find ourselves in that situation.

There has to be unconditional care available for the more unlikable of us, or there isn't really a safety net for any of us.

ace-scientist

The thing that concerns me the most is that the people I see arguing for only informal/community support networks are often in communities that have a lot of interpersonal drama and poor conflict resolution skills. So it's like...this should be your primary support network, but also people get excommunicated on a regular basis? That's a terrible idea for everyone involved. People who have caused harm still deserve help, and people who have been harmed deserve the ability to set boundaries and remove people from their lives in ways that aren't sentencing that person to losing all their options for basic support.

anothersolarpunk

Reblogging with tags from @kdhume

dirtypuzzle

the goal should always be a dozen different overlapping support networks, both informal and formal, institutional and interpersonal, distant and close. so if one net fails, there’s half a dozen more below it.

nangbaby

Dude, you need to calm down. I'm like 98% sure cotaco-witch is trolling you. But, uh, you really should not be throwing around TND if you're white/white adjacent. You're so obsessive with people that it's scary.

So you reply to trolling with more trolling, anon.

People are obsessed with me being an art thief, a writer, an actress, a loudmouth harassing artists at booths, or whatever identity I'm supposed to be today. They're the ones who say I'm that Nadia/Nads6969. They're the ones who continue with rumors from years past, spread them, and laugh at me for being a "stupid shemale who has sex with dogs" then claim that I made this hate up. If you want me to stop bringing the stuff up? Then they need to stop bringing up this stuff unprompted.

A prime example is this commentary on me.

Like, if you're more concerned about why an accusation or a phrase is problematic than whether or not it is true, then it's clear you're more obsessed with hurting people than doing what is right. And in your ask, you continue to further the drama instead of confronting the people spreading malicious gossip like in the screenshot above.

nangbaby

I have nothing more to say.

hegrowth

🚩 🚩🚩TEA. SPILL. NOW.

send me a 🚩 and i'll share my unpopular rpc opinions and hot takes. || accepting

oof ya'll we are in for it now. it's time... for puffin's hot take on softblocking. because yes I am and always will be salty about this shit, come fucking fight me and my anxiety-ridden existence.

firstly. I softblock inactive and archived blogs. I think that's chill. but I also always say I'm doing that, so in the event I accidentally softblock someone I didn't mean to and they check my blog like ??? they'll see that post and be like ah okay, it was a mistake.

now. for the love of fuck, why do people say they softblock when unfollowing folks in their rules but also state they do not want to be contacted if they unfollow you ? this is why I have anxiety. like, if you're gonna get offended every time someone messages you to make sure it wasn't an accident or glitch just block people.

and yeah, that is probably where 90% of my anxiety comes from, and why I struggle to reach out to people. because me, popping into someones DMs to make sure it wasn't a mistake gave them the ick and they decide to vague about me or block me anyway. grow the fuck up. and stop assuming the worst about people !

because you know what ? your self-righteous "ew don't talk to me after cutting you off" like tumblr isn't a glitching hellsite / mobile tumblr isn't an accidental thumb-swish away from deleting your blog is not friendly to your neurodivergent followers who struggle to understand situations and approach people.

because being disgusted by someone's genuine concern is shitty. if I come to you like, hey... it's because I noticed, and it mattered to me, and I managed to overcome the anxiety telling me everyone secretly hates me. you being rude about it isn't sexy, and it isn't cool. like, good for you. you're no longer being haunted by my lame ass.

listen. I understand that anxiety exists, obviously. but if that whole situation up top gives you anxiety then you should just block people. and also, if you are softblocking folks but aren't comfortable with them contacting you about it ??? copypastas bitch. a simple "hey, thanks for reaching out ! I did mean to softblock you, nothing personal, just please don't contact me anymore or follow me." goes a long fucking way, because if they then choose to keep pushing it ? you've set your boundaries, they're the asshole now, not you.

because the sentiment I see a lot is "I don't owe you an explanation" and I agree with that 10,000% !! do not come to me asking about why I blocked you or your friend or whatever else, I will not tell you, I do not have to tell you. but re: the copypasta I provided above ? no reasons, just facts. the only explanation you do owe someone is a clarification of the situation, aka setting your boundaries. no one needs to know why those boundaries are being set, in fact I fucking applaud you for setting them, but you do need to communicate that those boundaries are there.

SOFTBLOCKING ISNT ENFORCING A CLEAR BOUNDARY. softblocking is a petty ass way to rid yourself of someone. the metaphor I often see used is its the equivalent of scooping up a spider in your house on a piece of paper and putting it outside. I don't know about ya'll, but when I'm removing a critter from my home that I do not want in it I am actively talking to it and explaining the situation, even if it doesn't understand me, because I want it to know I mean it no harm and please don't come back. guys, no fucking joke, I wished a wasp a merry fucking christmas when I had to remove it from my house because I felt so bad my cat had been torturing it. wasps probably don't celebrate christmas !

point being, I communicate my boundaries to the spiders I'm taking out of my house like they're going to respect them. ya'll should do the fucking same. grow up. we all have anxiety. we all struggle to understand and accept certain social environments and interactions, especially online. we're all doing our best.

don't be a fucking asshole if you softblock someone and they want to make sure it was purposeful. in fact, don't be an asshole to anyone. there is no valid reason to be an asshole to anyone in the rpc, jfc.

also yes, if you softblock me I will block you, because I do not have the mental endurance to deal with the "they hate me" monologue spiraling through my silly little brain. because too many times I have experienced scorn and disgust and hate at being reached out to about softblocking and that has cemented in my brain, more than the anxiety it was a mistake. like just fucking block me, then.

so like. either don't softblock folks or grow up and communicate your boundaries, idk. and don't be an asshole, as previously stated.

this probably doesn't make any sense and has errors in logic / rationale but it's my anxious, frustrated ramblings so fuck it

final thoughts: please don't softblock me ! thanks

notquiteaghost

once again opening a ship tag on AO3 and opening a dozen fics and closing out of almost all of them immediately because they would not fucking act like that

notquiteaghost

why is it – i know why. this is a rhetorical question – that so many people have a fixed idea of what A Romance looks like and will mold the characters to fit it. rather than molding what the romance looks like to fit how the characters think and act.

like. i am drawn to repressed sarcastic bastards who would rather run into a burning building than verbalise their feelings. that is their appeal. why are you having them say 'i love you' while holding their partner's hands in full view of two dozen other people. stop that. they wouldn't fucking do that. other things can be a love confession. other things can be a display of affection. have you never anticipated someone's needs! done a task they hate without having to be asked! remembered their favourite food! rearranged your plans for their convenience! punched someone in the gut for insulting them! have some damn imagination!!!

notquiteaghost

hallmark movies won't tell you this but the love languages are actually access intimacy, in-jokes, learning the little details, attack dogism, and voluntary vulnerability

apricops

but I wanna get rewarded for consistent long term effort nooooow

theerurishipper

Your reblog about the senti thing make me LOLing so hard because of the senti defender when shoved a fact that contradict their theory mostly act like "Yeah, I didn't think that far" except they never said it out loud!

I remember when s4 still airing and these senti defender said "senti lives matter!" But whenever I ask, "what about that lolipop thing? Feast? Senti Moth?" They always said "They don't have the same level of intelligence as senti human, probably only at the level of animal"

So basically they said it's ok to kill a senti as long as they either don't looks like human or they have low intelligence. This came from the same people who preach that sentimonster is a good methapor for abuse or disabilities.

In the end it boil down to "if hero kill it, it's good but if villain kill it, it's bad" double standard and I couldn't even fathom what so good about the whole sentimonster!human thing except to make an obedient puppet.

"Yeah, hope Chat can have a upgrade power that could destroy the connection between amok and the senti" they said. Except he already did. TA said in his tweet the reason why Reflekdoll or any senti that gone berserk due to the cataclysm is /exactly/ because the connection was destroyed. It didn't free them, it make them berserk. And ironically, this tweet also what make people think the reason why Chat Blanc is so feral is because half of his amok got destroyed, instead of the long isolation and guilt that eat him.

Also a so called child psychologist preach the whole sentimonster is good methapor for abuse thing make me facepalmed, hard. Why need methapor if it's so obvious? Is miraculous going to put on disclaimer : Attention, no real child is being harmed here. Why take the whole abuse theme if they're not going to do it correctly? Who the heck approved this kind of theme??

Sorry for the long rant and thank you for reading my incoherent rant.

You said it, anon.

The Sentimonster theory is a shitty metaphor for abuse or disability. What it says to me is that if your disability isn't convenient or "normal," then you don't matter. Hence the "human" Sentimonsters like Adrien, Felix and Kagami who can fit into society are accepted, but the other Sentimonsters are disposable, despite them having the same amount of sentience and life as any of the human ones.

So Senti lives matter, but only if they're a particular type of Senti. If not, then they're not really alive and can be disposed of without a single thought spared to them (even though that's not true, because Felix treated Red Sun like a sister, and Feast, Sentibubbler, etc. clearly had emotions). Which means... only socially acceptable Senti rights matter. The rest of them only exist to be killed by the heroes. The heroes get to decide which Sentis matter and which ones don't, and the only ones that matter to them are the ones that look like them.

And like... if you're going to have an arc about making us understand that these creatures are just like us and have a life and emotions of their own, then don't create classes and divisions between them from the get-go. Don't portray some of them as more worthy than the others. Nothing in the show suggests that the creation of Adrien, Felix or Kagami was in any way different from the creation of Feast or any other Sentimonster. The argument that they are different because they were created to be humans is also bogus, because of Sentibug. She was created not to be a human, but to be a copy of Ladybug, yet she still had free will. All the justifications for this theory fall apart if we think about it for more than 5 seconds.

And the whole Chat Blanc thing you mentioned is part of a larger problem in this fandom, which involves attributing common reactions to abuse in abuse victims to them being artificially created beings. Adrien listens too much to his father? It must be because he's a Sentimonster and is being controlled, not because Gabriel has conditioned him to be subservient to him all his life! They are literally saying victims of abuse and their reactions to abuse are "unnatural," and can only happen if they weren't human at all. I despise this implication, especially since the show doubled down on it.

And it's not like this was a necessary writing choice. What does Adrien being a Sentimonster contribute to his's character? What did the revelation that he's being mind-controlled help us understand about him? What new facet to his character did we learn about? Nothing, really. There is no exploration of what Adrien being a Sentimonster means for him. He doesn't even find out about it. The only reason Adrien became a Sentimonster is so that the writers could justify leaving him out of the finale and so that they could have an obstacle for Adrienette. And I will say, introducing the whole "Sentimonsters deserve free-will" plot point and then using the characters' Senti status as an excuse to deprive them of agency in their own battles is... certainly a choice.

The Sentimonster theory isn't this groundbreaking exploration of the concept of humanity and free-will, nor is it this subversive metaphor for something that was already being portrayed blatantly in the show. It's something the writers used as a plot device to justify removing the three most plot relevant characters from the story so that Marinette could have the finale to herself. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that.

Which is why the concept is so poorly developed. The whole Senti rights thing is brought for about five minutes in Emotion and maybe two minutes in Pretension. After this, Felix, the main advocate for Senti rights himself falls back on all his ideals and creates a Sentimonster to use and then kill. The heroes have spent three seasons killing these livings creatures without a single care in the world. The moral implications of this are never questioned in any way, even though the show pretends it's presenting this thoughtful and nuanced commentary on the matter. No one cares about Sentimonsters. Sentibug is presented as this big deal, but they don't think about her for more than five seconds and then she is never brought up again. Sentimonsters do not matter in this show. Not to the villains, not to the heroes, not even those who start of advocating for them stick to that cause. The narrative doesn't care about Sentimonsters. Any justification made for it just paints in a worse light. It's a shitty metaphor for anything, and it's just a shitty plot point in general.

Thank you for your ask!

legsdemandias

I absolutely will die on this hill, access to fiction that makes your skin crawl and open discussion about it is the best way to keep that skin crawling fiction from happening in reality.

It doesn't matter if it is ~positively~ or negatively portrayed. If you censor it, we don't talk about it, then we can't protect against it.

legsdemandias

If you are seriously against CSA, then you should absolutely read Lolita. Yeah, the book that set the western world on fire with weird sexual conversations.

That book perfectly breaks down what a lot of very real sex abuse looks like. It details how predators look for victims (family members), it details what happens to the child who is enduring abuse (she acts out, she screams randomly, she does very poorly in school, etc, etc), and it shows who the most dangerous perpetrators are (intelligent, well liked, charismatic).

That book will make your skin absolutely crawl! Once you get out of the head of HH long enough to look at the world Dolores was dumped into, you’ll cry your eyes out. But you know what it’ll do? It’ll open your eyes.

That book has a lot of weird reactions. Some people turn on Lolita, some people turn on HH, some people turn on Nabokov, but it came out when Freud was still respected. That book came out in the middle of “little girls want to fuck older men and it’s their fault it happened and they’re crazy”.

It turned the world around. Some of the discussions about the book are nasty!!! Even from Kubrick and Nabokov. Their discussion about Lolita makes my SKIN CRAWL!! They talk about it in a very POSITIVE and WEIRD way. But it opens your fucking eyes and that’s the POINT.

Embrace disgusting fiction and then fucking talk about why it’s nasty. Now YOU have the power over reality.

deanhugchester

Embrace disgusting fiction and then fucking talk about why it's nasty. Now YOU have the power over reality.

Emphasizing this last sentence because it's so well put. We have to engage with things that make us uncomfortable so we can learn to be better.

fierceawakening

Yes! I recall reading a quote from Nabokov about why he wrote it. What I remember him saying was “I read in the news about a man who was arrested for molesting girls, and I became curious. Why would a person do that? So I wrote from the perspective of someone who would.”

That’s… that’s not even weird, I don’t think. I wonder why people do horrible things all the time.

I don’t actually think Nabokov had everything about it right. It seems to me that many real molesters are much more aware of what they’re doing and sometimes even perving on the cruelty of what they’re doing. HH seems kind of quaintly Freudian in comparison.

But that’s what Nabokov would have seen around explaining it, so it makes sense.

And Nabokov really does seem aware, on my reading, that HH is doing harm, and that the idyllic love affair he’s dreaming of is in his head. What’s actually going on is just seedy and gross.

It’s hard to read, hard to understand, and messy.

But those things are what make it good, rather than just “hey look I picked a shocking topic have some torture porn.”

(I hate the term torture porn but it’s the best term I can think of rn)

boldlygoingthefucktobed

Nabokov gave extensive interviews and talked about Lolita often. He gets such a raw deal. I have compiled a bunch on my main blog here. i just hate nabokov misinformation so here are three for you:

Do you closely follow Lolita’s fate? I feel obliged to keep up with the destiny of Lolita. After all, people stop me on the street and ask me to comment on opinions. So I have to know what is being said about me. Lolita is an indictment of all the things it expresses. It is a pathetic book dealing with the plight of a child, a very ordinary little girl, caught up by a disgusting and cruel man….But of all my books, I like it the best. The last bone always tastes best.

Nabokov…predicted: “Those who keep looking for spicy bits will not find them. They will not be able to read the book through—they will get bored too soon. The only thing that might be attractive is the diary H.H. keeps. And then, who would be attracted by a 12-year-old girl?"

Vera Nabokov…refilled his glass. “Tell them about the child,” she said. “Oh, yes. I am rather bitter about this. I am in favor of childhood—in fact the very first book I ever did was a translation of Alice in Wonderland into Russian. Anyway, a few nights ago, on Goblin night, a little girl—she was 8 or 9 I think—came to the door for candy. And she was dressed up as Lolita, with a tennis racquet and a pony tail, and a sign reading l-o-l-i-t-a. I was shocked.”

By all accounts and backed up by extensive interviews, Nabokov wrote a psychological thriller and expected people to be shocked and compelled by it in the same way you can't look away from a train wreck. His worst crime was total naivete. He literally never expected that anyone would take it as a romance.

witchbabywigg

nabokov wrote "don't create the torment nexus" and then children showed up at his door dressed as the torment nexus and people forever will be like "you wrote about the torment nexus, which is the same thing as being in support of the torment nexus".

apteryxdrake

The first time I asked a person about the book Lolita, they told me "it is a romance, it is about a young woman and an older man falling in love". Then the second time someone told me about it, they said it was a nauseating accusation of society. And the third person told me it was a terrible story about an adult predating on a kid.

I really wish the first interpretation never existed. I wish the author's naivete over expecting utter shock and disgust from everyone wasn't naivete but how society really is.

I don't believe censorship is the solution, but I do think such books should be restricted to the classroom with a good learning structure so as to give people context, or at least they should be released with additional commentary so a new reader can understand the entire context.

Also, such books need trigger warnings. I was a victim of CSA. When I was a kid I had a veracious need to read every book in existence, and had I accidentally come across that book and started reading it, that horrible book would have completely wrecked me. Perhaps permanently. It certainly did my head in as an adult to find out that people think such a thing was "romance".

vaspider

That is censorship. Restricting who can read a book is censorship. That is exactly what it is.

As frustrating as it is that people read things "the wrong way," and they do, and they always will, making sure people "read the book in the correct and approved way and take away the correct and approved meaning" is... not a thing that should ever be hoped for.

Commentary editions are great! Restricting where and how and by whom things can be read? Not so much.

commasameleon-deactivated202510

The solution is never to restrict who reads a book. The solution is to make sure everyone who reads a book discusses that book with lots of other different kinds of people with lots of different kinds of opinions. THAT is how you dispel “wrong” readings. THAT is how you help people who have a reaction to a reading which is potentially “harmful” or “problematic” to be more accepting of diversity, more able to cope with evil in the world, more able to discern evil, and more emboldened to denounce it when discerned.

vaspider

No. People need to have the opportunity to do so.

Anytime you say "make sure" or "must" about reading, it's a form of enforcing one way of consuming books, and that's a bit of backhanded enforcement of correct opinions. If someone wants to read the book and never talk to anyone about it? That is one of many "correct" ways to read the book.

And the thing is... even when we're talking about something like Lolita, where there is definitely a wrong way to read the book, people are allowed to be wrong about art. Yes, even this art. Yes, even this book. They have to be allowed to be wrong about art, because the minute that you start trying to force people to observe the Correct Way of consuming art or thinking about it, you aren't just doing a big ol' censorship, you're holding the door open and yelling "QUICK, ALL YOU BAD ACTORS! I'VE JUST MADE IT OKAY TO MANDATE CORRECT OPINIONS ABOUT ART! QUICKLY, COME BAN ALL THE ART YOU DON'T LIKE!"

And that always, always lands on marginalized artists first, last, and hardest.

So, yeah, a robust community with the option to join into meaningful discussion about what you're reading? Super great. Super awesome. Fully agreed.

Any kind of "must only read in classes or talk to people about it so we can be sure you interpret the art 'correctly'" is a big no.

People have to be allowed to be wrong about books.

Yes, even that one.

nangbaby

Actually, there is no such thing about being wrong about a book or art. People are allowed to interpret it the way they want and how they interpret it is right. PERIOD.

Saying people are reading something the wrong way is censorship. Approval is just another form of bullying.

stuckinapril

learning lately that a lot of confidence is about owning up. like "yeah i'm a little addicted to my phone right now" or "yeah i'm not really over this person yet" or "yeah i still get pretty anxious in crowds" just saying anything at all but then following it up w "but i'm trying to get better" and being super nonchalant and unaffected. so powerful. you would literally be undefeatable in the face of even the most judgmental person. no one can judge you for things you already know about yourself and are trying to improve on. the trick is to know yourself from the inside out, to hold yourself accountable, and to actively improve every day. like that is literally the secret to never feeling like you're at the mercy of somebody else's judgment

nangbaby

That's all well and good until everyone says you aren't improving and writes you off. You stay confident and everyone abandons you.

legsdemandias

I absolutely will die on this hill, access to fiction that makes your skin crawl and open discussion about it is the best way to keep that skin crawling fiction from happening in reality.

It doesn't matter if it is ~positively~ or negatively portrayed. If you censor it, we don't talk about it, then we can't protect against it.

nangbaby

The same is true for anything written, fictional or not.

If something or even someone makes your skin crawl, the best thing to do is to maintain access to it...and vice versa.

ky-ju-deactivated20231122

I feel like practicing any skill would be way more fun if I could have a lil level increase thing that pops up in front of me every time I do good like in Skyrim

ky-ju-deactivated20231122

“Push ups increased to level 5”

“Writing dialogue increased to level 37”

“Coping mechanisms (healthy) increased to level 18”

Let's suppose you have this character. The character is not our all-suffering yet much beloved hero who goes through the wringer. The character is not our hated villain. No, the character is an antagonist, opposed to the hero either personally or on principle, but at the same time not really a threat. In fact, the very idea that they could be a true threat is laughable. Maybe they're childish. Maybe they're spoiled. Maybe they're a coward. They're small potatoes.

But this character doesn't want to be small potatoes. This character wants to be useful. This character, for all of their flaws, very much wants to do the right thing when it comes down to it and is seeing all those around them pass them by. Perhaps they weren't gifted with the intuition, the insight, or the intelligence to punch above their shortcomings but their heart is in the right place when it comes to the big picture.

But in the course of events the character gets in over their own head. The character either doesn't know their limitations or knows them but simply tries to defy those limit anyway. The character wants to be useful. And when the opportunity presents itself for the character to actually try to be a hero, the character tries to do so...and fails hard. Despite having a smidgen of power in their hands, the reality is they're outclassed by the peril and outmatched by whatever situation and they're in. They try and they fail.

Now that should be the end, but it is not.

Remember that villain that I mentioned before the one that this character is not. Well the villain has a way of forcing someone to do what they want. Maybe it's magic or maybe it's mad science but somehow your character who was once useless and once wanted to be a hero has been changed. The character is now broken and if their purpose cannot be filled by being a hero then it can be found by becoming a minion. And in the process of becoming a minion the character does things that can't be taken back. The character is more than a pawn and by taking this route does become an actual threat. That character has found their use in dealing the suffering to others they felt.

But despite this no matter how bleak the world gets where this character inhabits, it's a world where heroes eventually win. And this character, now a villain, despite there being no way of turning back still has a glimmer of hope that they could be the hero. This character holds on to this hope even after the character has seen where they have been replaced. The position and the life that they had was taken from them and then given to someone who came out of nowhere. The character spirals further and further to lower and lower points far from their cushy beginnings.

There is no hope. There is no way back. The only resolution that can be given is a merciful end and the illusion of getting one's ex-position is shattered.

The question...where does the character go from here?

With everything that the character once held they are taken from them, is the character simply put out of their misery? Or can another character do the unthinkable and show this character that even if the path of life was diverged irrevocably, that the character does not have to die in despair or in self-destructive sadism? After all there is a path, maybe not for restoration but for redemption of a different sort, where one can be a hero without actually seeing oneself as one. One can recompense for the evil in the shadows without admitting to doing good and just living as an ordinary person. But an intervention is needed. Will that happen?

Or will the character just be bad, learn nothing, and simply be a tragic victim of machinations all around them while everyone else seemingly has a happily ever after.

As I said, "Let's suppose..."

#trope #there's a trope for this #inferiority complex #miraculous ladybug #chloe bourgeois #this could apply to so many other characters #but chloe is such wasted potential #She's like a smushed banana #Would that be banana jam?#ridiculous #utterly ridiculous

homunculus-argument

I think the funniest dynamic for arranged-marriage royalty would be a queen who came here 100% prepared to murder her future husband and rule as a widow queen in her own right, only to discover that the king is autistic as hell and responds to her wish to rule with "oh thank god please do, I don't want to be bothered by these people. I can just tell them to go bother you instead, if you really want that. I've got beetles I wanted to study."

stele3

"I'm really not good at it," the king admits with horrible, aching grief. The country is in disarray. Peasants go hungry. Nobles trade power amongst themselves with impunity.

So the queen takes over and ruthlessly sets things to rights. Fires several generals, hangs nobles, redirects wealth to the peasantry. It isn't long before the first assassination attempt, which she expected.

She did not expect her docile, beetle-obsessed husband to go absolutely feral and fling himself at the assassins wielding a pair of sharp knives.

stele3

Also, the beetles are intended to attack and kill a certain type of invasive worm that has been killing off the gourd and potato crops for decades. He’s been trying since he was a child to crossbreed several native species to be hardier and better diggers. When he finally gets it right it’s all over for you bitches (“you bitches” being mass starvation of subsistence farmers).

stele3

The Queen says she’ll negotiate a trade deal with a neighboring country that has also suffered from the worm blight and her husband stares at her for a long moment.

“No,” he finally says. “We’re going to give them the beetles for free.”

The Queen pauses.

“All right,” she says.

shinyasahalo

mintmatcha

Job Title: ENTRY LEVEL TECHNICIAN FOR DUM-DUMS. JOB FOR STUPID FUCKING BITCHES

Requirements: Masters Degree in Engineering (PhD Preferred), TEM, SAED, FUCKYOURSELF and EDX, Flexible work hours, Type O- blood, Five Years Experience

Compensation: $15.00 an hour

erisluna35

Felix had one thing Chloé didn't to help him turn good: dream of hot azn gf

Hah! Good one!

nangbaby

Imaging if the showrunners were to give Chloé a hot Asian bf for her "redemption."

Silly me, even that surface level of fetishization would require work on their part.

erisluna35

In an alternate universe where the writers wouldn't trash their characters at a drop of a hat, this could've been Kim.

sweetcloverheart

Hey now, Let's not limit ourselves to sexual binaries here. I mean, they could always give her an Asian BF and GF - you know, for extra racist fetishization "diversity".

(and if they decide to bring her back, they could always them evil too so they have something to bond over)

nangbaby

20 years too late, but this is how I see them satisfying all those requirements...

jellybracelet

After six months of being blocked by someone, I believe there should be a process by which the Blocked can submit a plea to the Blocker to, in good faith, argue for their unblocking.

The Blocked should submit letters from up to three mutuals-in-common certifying the Blocked's good character.

At the time of the Unblock Request Form submission, there can be an option to pull up old, problematic or annoying posts for the Blocked to make redlined corrections for how they would post them if they were created in present day.

After the Blocker reviews the submission, they can choose to

a) throw out the request and maintain the block.

b) offer their own counter-evidence to the Blocked's claim of good character—after this is submitted and reviewed by the Blocked, the Blocked can either surrender and sacrifice their request OR begin the process again with amended claims and recommendation letters from new mutuals-in-common. A counter can only be initiated once. If a resolution is not decided after the Blocked's second submitted claim, the request is thrown out.

c) accept the request and unblock the previously Blocked.

If the Blocker chooses to unblock, there is a firm, one month no-block period where the (ex-)Blocker is prohibited from attempting to re-block the previously blocked user. After one month, they are free to block again.

A re-blocked user must wait a minimum of 365 days before submitting another claim to the same Blocker.

Users who feel they are being constantly pestered by an individual blocked user can submit a claim to Tumblr Support to have the Unblock Request Form permanently deactivated for that blocked user.

nangbaby

I sincerely wouldn't mind blocking in general if it were more akin to this. If there were appeals, give and take, and specifically time-limited actions, then there being a "cooling off period" would make blocking a temporary problem instead of a permanent solution.

But basically blocking is telling someone to shut up....forever.

doberbutts

Tbh I am continuously baffled that there's really people out there saying things like "the amount of respect I have for your existence and this conversation about your experience is directly correlated with how willing you are to suck my toes and not harsh my vibe" and still believe they are in the right

nangbaby

There's nothing baffling about it.

If you encourage people to block who they want, then people will block anyone who doesn't suck their toes. It's encouraged that if someone says something you don't like, even if it is relevant to their existence, you block them.

This is the end result of that thinking. The experiences of others are something you simply don't have to respect or deal with.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Everybody Hates Nang