Lorem Deim, Carpe Ipsum

[decemberwinter]

Cursed croissants

[curiositysavesthecat]

Would you eat these croissants?

Yes

No

Voting ended onJul 11

[nerdinessisbeauty]

[glamrockmike]

realizing that the online sphere and especially tumblr is NOT a good sample for ‘what everyone thinks’ is so, so, so good for your mental health and moral OCD. i swear to god. realizing that you don’t have to live your actual life like you’re being hunted for sport because the average tumblr user will hunt you for sport for wording something slightly weird or engaging in the wrong stuff or whatever is so incredible. like no you’re actually not fucked up and evil for not donating or for watching that one indie cartoon or questioning a post that everybody is agreeing with. that’s just tumblrs georg making you feel that way

[hyperculture]

OH OKAY......

[yesornopolls]

are either of your nostrils stuffed/blocked right now?

Are either of your nostrils stuffed/blocked right now?

Yes

No

Voting ended onJul 10

[atelier-tamamoland]

"you cannot have a category of person that stops being a person or everyone that someone wants to get rid of is going to end up being put in that category" and other really fucking obvious and basic observations that everyone ignores in favor of putting people they want to get rid of into a category they think makes them stop being a person

[nerdinessisbeauty]

Honestly? This is the reason I have trouble wrapping my head around it/its pronouns. Objects and animals are "it". "It" is the word we use to denote non-personhood. "It" is what you call people when you want to violently murder them along with every other person in the same demographic.

Gender is a social construct, your status as a sapient being with thoughts and opinions and inherent value is not. From a human rights perspective I'm *deeply* uneasy with any socially sanctioned mechanism for removal of personhood, even if it's voluntary.

[hyperrbolic-orange]

It/its pronouns are not a removal of personhood, nor are they an endorsement of dehumanization or a statement about how said person feels about its gender. Any noun can be an "it." People call babies "it."

"Laura just had a baby, have you seen it?? SOO CUTE."

Now, this could be in part to people seeing babies as tiny objects who will one day become people but arent there yet, I don't know. But, it's also because much of the time, the gender of a baby is unknown, and "it" is a genderless pronoun, or a pronoun that does not imply conformity to the gender binary. Thus the appeal.

Besides, if we can accept that pronoun =/= gender, it should therefore also be true that pronoun =/= personhood.

A pronoun controls nothing, it's simply a term used to refer to someone other than their name. Anyone can use any pronoun and it doesnt tell you anything about them other than the pronouns they use. Like, someone who uses any and all pronouns isnt having their gender rotated at the whim of those around them, decideding she's a girl one second and he's a boy the next then xie's non-binary, etc etc.

Some people do feel their gender changes from day to day and will switch presentation, pronouns to fit with that. Some may change pronouns but feel their gender is consistent, they only want to be referred to in various ways.

As you said, it's very personal for everyone and the "rules" we came up with vary greatly between cultures and societies and have changed with time periods, social values, etc. So more than most social constructs this one is particularly personal and flexible.

Pronouns are just a way of addressing a person. They dont dictate anything. And it/its pronouns arent anymore "dehumanizing" than neopronouns like fae/faer and similar, which are literally based off non-human beings. It's just how people feel comfortable being referred to.

The good news is, you don't have to wrap your head around it. Like full on, you literally don't need to understand. You can keep going "i do not get it." That is actually fine. There are many things within the queer community that I dont fully get or understand. I mean, there are so many different types of people here with different experiences and perspectives and views and ways of expressing themselves, that's always going to be the case. And thats okay. The world is a big place.

What we do need to do is shrug and go "okeydoke, you do you." You dont need to understand a person to respect it.

Honestly, realizing that took a load off my mind.

[nerdinessisbeauty]

That's a very noble speech and I applaud the sentiment. In a vacuum, your logic holds. In the real world, there is a hideously long and incredibly ugly pattern of referring to other people as "it" as a prelude for homicidal and even genocidal actions. It's not something that can just be divorced from its' cultural context, not when the damage runs as deep as it does. The closest analogy I can think of off the top of my head would be someone trying to argue "swastikas are just lines on a blank background, they don't have to mean anything more than that!". Sure, there's no grand cosmic force saying they *must* have a certain meaning attached to them, but they do. We all know they do.

I'm not going to go out of my way to give anyone who uses it/its pronouns a hard time, but I do believe they are wildly under-informed about what aspects of human nature they're inadvertently invoking. If you believe that means I have a touch of conservatism in me, so be it. Go argue with a genocide tribunal.

[hyperrbolic-orange]

God, why is it always Nazi shit with you people... is there no other POSSIBLE analogy you could make? "You people" in this instance being gentiles. Which technically I cannot say for certain you are but statistically speaking there is an excellent chance.

How about, from now on, you never ever use anything related to Nazis or the Holocaust as an analogy for anything else ever again to make any kind of point about anything ever? I apologize if that sounds snippy, this is sort of an accidental landmine situation I guess.

If you scroll down a post or two on my blog there's a post about kids vaping in schools where I explain a little bit about my snipping attitude here, if you care to know. Which you don't have to go look at, that's just if you're like "the hell is she on about?" I recently explained, so.

Moving on to your actual point—swastikas are a particularly terrible example here actually because they dont have just the one meaning, either. I mean, dont get me wrong as a Jew I see them and usually the Kill Bill sirens start playing in my head. It's upsetting to me, a horrible symbol that very much does represent the destruction of my people, our culture, our future—and to this day it's weaponized against us by those on both the left and the right, both of whom seem united in nothing but can agree that Jews sure are the root of all evil.

However, I also know this is not a universal truth. It used to mean something else, it was a Buddhist symbol of peace before the Nazis stole it. For many the symbol still holds that meaning, although displaying the symbol is certainly taboo in Western countries. Even something as ironclad as this detestable hate symbol is able to represent something different to different people, in a specifc context.

Personally I have no thoughts or feelings about your political allegiance. If you're somewhere in the centre or conservative or if you were just saying that sortve sarcastically like "if that makes me a bad left, so be it!" That's like... not important to me? I mean I don't know you, I'm not trying to change your mind or argue with you or "make a speech" or something, I'm just a verbose person with a lot of thoughts and an interest in gender, sexuality and linguistics.

So like, you do you? I presented my perspective, that was all. Like I said, the world is full of different identities and perspectives and views.

I still think you should consider that unless someone tells you "I don't consider myself a person," (which I might find concerning depending on context), it isnt fair to say that theyve voluntarily dehumanized themselves.

[nerdinessisbeauty]

The fact you understood I was referring to Nazism means the analogy worked. The Buddhist variant of the symbol is stylistically distinct and such a rare thing to see in the West it's essentially an outlier. I'm not Jewish but I am queer, the Nazis are a personal threat to me as well.

Overall, like I said, I appreciate the sentiment. It'd be nice if culture and language were as easily malleable as you think they are.

[atelier-tamamoland]

"you cannot have a category of person that stops being a person or everyone that someone wants to get rid of is going to end up being put in that category" and other really fucking obvious and basic observations that everyone ignores in favor of putting people they want to get rid of into a category they think makes them stop being a person

[nerdinessisbeauty]

Honestly? This is the reason I have trouble wrapping my head around it/its pronouns. Objects and animals are "it". "It" is the word we use to denote non-personhood. "It" is what you call people when you want to violently murder them along with every other person in the same demographic.

Gender is a social construct, your status as a sapient being with thoughts and opinions and inherent value is not. From a human rights perspective I'm *deeply* uneasy with any socially sanctioned mechanism for removal of personhood, even if it's voluntary.

[hyperrbolic-orange]

It/its pronouns are not a removal of personhood, nor are they an endorsement of dehumanization or a statement about how said person feels about its gender. Any noun can be an "it." People call babies "it."

"Laura just had a baby, have you seen it?? SOO CUTE."

Now, this could be in part to people seeing babies as tiny objects who will one day become people but arent there yet, I don't know. But, it's also because much of the time, the gender of a baby is unknown, and "it" is a genderless pronoun, or a pronoun that does not imply conformity to the gender binary. Thus the appeal.

Besides, if we can accept that pronoun =/= gender, it should therefore also be true that pronoun =/= personhood.

A pronoun controls nothing, it's simply a term used to refer to someone other than their name. Anyone can use any pronoun and it doesnt tell you anything about them other than the pronouns they use. Like, someone who uses any and all pronouns isnt having their gender rotated at the whim of those around them, decideding she's a girl one second and he's a boy the next then xie's non-binary, etc etc.

Some people do feel their gender changes from day to day and will switch presentation, pronouns to fit with that. Some may change pronouns but feel their gender is consistent, they only want to be referred to in various ways.

As you said, it's very personal for everyone and the "rules" we came up with vary greatly between cultures and societies and have changed with time periods, social values, etc. So more than most social constructs this one is particularly personal and flexible.

Pronouns are just a way of addressing a person. They dont dictate anything. And it/its pronouns arent anymore "dehumanizing" than neopronouns like fae/faer and similar, which are literally based off non-human beings. It's just how people feel comfortable being referred to.

The good news is, you don't have to wrap your head around it. Like full on, you literally don't need to understand. You can keep going "i do not get it." That is actually fine. There are many things within the queer community that I dont fully get or understand. I mean, there are so many different types of people here with different experiences and perspectives and views and ways of expressing themselves, that's always going to be the case. And thats okay. The world is a big place.

What we do need to do is shrug and go "okeydoke, you do you." You dont need to understand a person to respect it.

Honestly, realizing that took a load off my mind.

[nerdinessisbeauty]

That's a very noble speech and I applaud the sentiment. In a vacuum, your logic holds. In the real world, there is a hideously long and incredibly ugly pattern of referring to other people as "it" as a prelude for homicidal and even genocidal actions. It's not something that can just be divorced from its' cultural context, not when the damage runs as deep as it does. The closest analogy I can think of off the top of my head would be someone trying to argue "swastikas are just lines on a blank background, they don't have to mean anything more than that!". Sure, there's no grand cosmic force saying they *must* have a certain meaning attached to them, but they do. We all know they do.

I'm not going to go out of my way to give anyone who uses it/its pronouns a hard time, but I do believe they are wildly under-informed about what aspects of human nature they're inadvertently invoking. If you believe that means I have a touch of conservatism in me, so be it. Go argue with a genocide tribunal.

[homoshop]

[goslinggf]

[inthetags]

Reblog and list the first 6 Pokemon that come to mind, in the tags

[uwillneverknowwho]

Hey. Stop for a second. Take this moment to appreciate that you don't have to write a paper right now. No one is asking you to write a paper. You don't have to think about the paper or plan your time around the paper. You have the freedom to think about whatever you want. Everything is going to be okay. At least you don't have to write a paper right now

[yesornopolls]

Is it insensitive to reblog posts about world events onto a blog that also contains shitposts and NSFW posts?

Is it insensitive to reblog posts about world events onto a blog that also contains shitposts and NSFW posts?

Yes

No

Voting ended onJul 6

[gifchive]

[camillefaglia]

reblog to play with the balls of the user you reblogged this from.

[nbarpf]

You can make friends over the internet by posting about wanting to see male celebrities having gay sex

[bourtange]

republicans: homeless people should be ground into sausage and fed to schoolchildren

democrats: persons experiencing houselessness should be ground into sausage and fed to schoolchildren

[txttletale]

this post posits a utopian world where either of these parties would support feeding schoolchildren, making it a masterclass in "hopepunk"

[nerdinessisbeauty]

Listen, I know this is supposed to be bitterly sarcastic or whatever, but the picture you're painting is so bleak you're starting to do the fascist's propaganda job for them. If this is the highest level of hope you can aspire to, we've already lost.

[sanjidysphoria]

me rn ^-^

[jakques]

Me everytime

[snorlaxatives]

i think one of the best parts about being a teenager in the early to mid 2010s was that cigarettes were definitely not cool anymore and vapes hadn’t popularized yet so my lungs made it out of my peak impressionable years relatively unscathed

[kaiyves-backup]