It's kinda not fair that Dave and Karkat get to be canon otp and I'm over here kinning Dave and Karkat by myself.

shark vs the universe
Misplaced Lens Cap

Kiana Khansmith
Sade Olutola

No title available
Stranger Things
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

No title available
No title available

Origami Around
One Nice Bug Per Day

#extradirty

Love Begins

ellievsbear
art blog(derogatory)
Claire Keane
Three Goblin Art
Not today Justin

izzy's playlists!
official daine visual archive

seen from Malaysia

seen from Brazil
seen from Ireland
seen from Ireland
seen from Ireland
seen from France
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Switzerland

seen from Switzerland
@none-data
It's kinda not fair that Dave and Karkat get to be canon otp and I'm over here kinning Dave and Karkat by myself.
i don't understand what I'm so desperately sad and lonely and right now besides just like... chemicals. but if I had to guess, and throw came like 14 guesses down the list. it's I'm so fucking sad and nostalgic about having had a moirail once and that kinda went away so completely i didn't think of it until i thought of like 8 other people i kinda want to talk to but don't actually. but that also send like such an old wound i haven't picked at in so long i don't even think there's a scar there
My sexuality is none of my business.
still true
How to silence negative thinking
🌹
accept that you arent special to some people and move on
There's not a single way in the world a dude can ask me to kiss him that doesn't make me want to slip my skeleton out of my skin and run screaming through a wall.
Richard Campbell Gansey III aesthetics
Muses from Hercules:
Me:
shut up i know
oh i really hope i don’t love you
x
프롬 (Fromm) - Linda Linda
WINNER - ISLAND
지코 (ZICO) - FANXY CHILD (Feat. FANXY CHILD)
제시 (Jessi) - Gucci
friendly reminder that jughead jones is canonically aro/ace
happy pride month, everyone :)
it’s crucial to realise that abuse cannot be reduced to a list of contextless behaviours. abusive actions are abusive, not because of their inherent nature, but because of the place that they take in a larger pattern of control or intimidation. if you try to paint a picture of what an abuser acts like without reference to these larger patterns, you’re inevitably going to describe a lot of the ways in which people who are being abused act–and many abusers know how to take advantage of that.
for example, an abuser may accuse their victim of witholding sex, saying that their victim is strategically denying them sexual access in order to control them. this falls into a larger pattern of the abuser feeling a sense of ownership towards their partner, feeling entitled to sexual access, and resenting their partner for exercising agency over their own body (& overwhelmingly, cases such as this involve a male abuser and a female victim). they may become angry when their partner understandably doesn’t want to have sex with them after they’ve been abusive towards them in other ways.
however, it’s also true that many abusers do strategically use sex as a control tactic, using their victim’s need for intimacy against them and refusing sex specifically as a form of punishment for other perceived slights. and the mere fact that one person is refusing sex with another person cannot tell you which of these, if either, is occurring.
similarly, abusers often use physical intimidation tactics such as stomping about, slamming doors, and breaking objects in order to create fear in their victims (and the expectation that perhaps they’re going to be hurt, whether or not the abuser has been physically violent before), or to punish them for stepping out of line. they’ll later claim that they just “lost it.”
but it’s wholly possible for victims of abuse to slam doors or to break objects out of understandable frustration with the terror to which they’re being subjected. without a reference to the overall dynamics of power in the relationship–whether or not the door was slammed in order to create fear, whether or not the person who broke an object also uses other tactics of manipulation and intimidation, and often whose objects were broken (abusers may claim that they “lose control” of themselves, but they conveniently seem to destroy only things that belong to their partners)–you can’t say that breaking an object = abuse.
& you have to keep in mind the fact that many abusers keep their victims on the defensive by accusing them of using their own manipulative tactics. someone (likely a man) who controls their partner through checking out other people & engaging in affairs may call their partner crazy or jealous or controlling for trying to put a stop to the behaviour–all the while being highly jealous and controlling of their victim, strategically fabricating suspicions about their infidelity in order to take the focus off of their (the abuser’s) behaviour.
or perhaps someone really is jealous–but feelings of jealousy do not automatically equal abuse in the absence of abusive behaviour relating to that jealousy. & you can apply the same concept to things such as crying or showing other signs of emotional upset when confronted with criticism, asking your partner to contribute more around the house, or a great deal of other things that I could name: these could all be manipulation tactics used by an abuser, responses to abuse manifested by victims (which the abusers may then spin around as evidence that they’re the ones being abused), or examples of simple conflicts that arise in nonabusive relationships that can be worked through in a constructive way.
abusers know how to manipulate shallow or inaccurate understandings of how abuse operates to the detriment of their victims, and they benefit from descriptions of abuse that abstract it away from dynamics of power and control. let’s avoid making their jobs easier for them.
The white male style of debate is to antagonize you until you snap. Then they win by default, because they make up their own rules in which being upset automatically invalidates your argument. The key is also to argue about things that they have no stake and experience in, so they dont snap first. Of course in the event that they do snap first, its of course passion, not anger…
White people are like little kids who make up new rules and obnoxious powers to keep themselves from losing….
At the end of it all, they are happy that you are so civil and can debate things rationally and clearly without getting upset. Everyone shakes hands and thanks everyone for being able to discuss “conflicting” viewpoints. Because after all everyone needs to hear the opposing side to truly be sophisticated. Even if you’ve heard that side all your life and it completely devalues you as a human being.
What i hear is that the mark of civilization to white people is being dehumanized and taking it like a champ.
They also have little to no concept of power dynamics in these ‘sophisticated” discussions.
Why I stopped indulging people who followed this argumentative “format”
This is so real and applicable to every dinner party I’ve ever been to
This is a particularly aggressive form of Sealioning.
Sealioning is the name given to a specific, pervasive form of aggressive and willfully intentional cluelessness, that masquerades as a sincere desire to understand.
A Sealion is someone who, when confronted with a fact that they don’t care to acknowledge, say, the persistence of systemic racism in America, will ask endlessly for “proof” and insist that it is the other person’s job to stop everything they are doing and address the issue to their satisfaction.
The purpose of Sealioning is never to actually learn or become more informed. The purpose is to interrogate. Much like actual interrogators, Sealions bombard their target with question after question, digging and digging until the target either says something stupid or is so pissed off that they react in the extreme. The other major reason why people hate Sealioning is because responding to it is a complete waste of time.
It’s an insidious trap. Responding to questions asked reasonably is, of course, a natural thing for people to do. I like to do it myself; educating others is generally pretty entertaining, especially if they are receptive to learning. Dismissing those questions can appear condescending or rude, especially if you actually are condescending or rude.
Of course, these questions are not asked because the person asking them genuinely wants to know the answer. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the “debate principle”. It is best explained thusly: When you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.
No, these questions are asked to make a responder waste their time. It works, too; I’ve responded to Sealions before, answering all their questions and claims for evidence, only to be greeted by even more willful ignorance. It’s a way to force people into responding to questions phrased neutrally but asked in bad faith.
The name “Sealioning” comes from a most splendid webcomic, “Wondermark”, by David Malki.
It can be found here: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/873260-sea-lioning
Sealions are just “asking nicely” but they are asking questions that have been asked and answered fully many times, and are unwilling to so much as open a new tab to look up the answer, nor will they recognize the validity of your sources, your experience or expertise no matter what you do. It is impossible to satisfy a Sealion.
Make no mistake.
Sealioning is a specific form of harassment. You may not explain their inquiry has already been address. You may not cite a source. You may not refer to a previous answer. You definitely may not ever point them to a link. You must spend all your time and energy responding as much as you can to every little details of every innocent, polite little question they ask. Sealioning isn’t a sincere attempt at anything. It’s a calculated technique to grind an opponent down.
If any of my followers feel like you’re being sealioned, I can play elephant seal and help destroy them.
Not only is this a thing, it’s actually something various hard right groups are teaching their members to do. It’s essentially just never backing down no matter what, never admitting someone else is correct, and always try to force the argument onto the path you want to go down. So I’ve found the best way to combat it is:
A) Call them out on their inability to admit they were wrong. This sounds pretty simple, but it’s very easy to get dragged into whatever they say next instead of just pointing out that you’ve proven their first point is bullshit yet they’re still yakking on.
B) They try to box you into a corner? Box them back. If they won’t accept a link, laugh at them for failing to understand it/read it. Call them out for trying to veer the conversation in another direction without yielding the point. Specifically state that you see their cheap tactics and find them weak and a sign of a poor debater.
C) Never let them move onto the next question. Demand they answer yours instead. Why should they get to set the terms of the debate? Why is it always them who deserves explanations?
D) Suggest that they’re arguing in bad faith. That they don’t really want an answer. And if they say no way? Then point out that someone arguing in good faith would do all the things they refuse to. They’d read links and evidence. They’d agree on at least *something*. And failing that, they’d walk away. Good faith arguers will reach a certain point and then just say agree to disagree. But these guys? Won’t. They will not leave it alone no matter what. That’s the hallmark of a sealion trained to demoralise us.
And when they indirectly admit that, you call them out on it.
Then you don’t leave it alone. Hound that fucking sealion until he honks for mercy.
Still important.
So many people in my social circles need to recognize the sealion problem we have, and stop feeding the wildlife.
And in case anyone wasn’t clear: This method of argument (push until you snap) is absolutely a form of violence, because it requires you to care less about something in order for your opinion to be valid. It is silencing. It is degrading. It is dehumanizing. It is the very first step to making a person into a thing.