NSFW I'm a 52 year-old ex-welder. This blog has some NSFW photos (non-nude) with occasional posts about living with incontinence. I'm following a bunch of NSFW picture blogs that feature what turns me on the most: Women wetting their pants and wearing diapers. The female pants wetting turn-on has been since forever, but the interest in diapers rapidly evolved once I landed in them myself. I've been incontinent since early 2008 from a spinal injury and wearing diapers 24/7/365 since. Life is complicated, and if you want a carefully curated presentation of only what you're interested in, you won't find that here. This blog will encapsulate all the bits of me, whether you like them or not, and it's up to you to scroll past them. I've tagged a few more posts that explain myself in a little more detail with #tinlizziedl.
Heads-Up: If you're seeking a "Mommy" or "Daddy" -dom role with me as a submissive or baby, you're going to be disappointed. I am not interested in any sort of dynamic like that.
Save yourself the time and effort and move along.
I'm more than willing to be friends with fellow ABDL's and would love to meet people IRL (if I can get over my shyness/introversion), but that's probably the limit unless we really feel some chemistry for a while. I've been a loner for so long, it may take some patience with me - I'm admittedly not very skilled in socializing and may miss hints.
Thank you for reading this, and I hope you enjoy what I post & reblog :)
The number of âI stand with Ukraineâ progressives who likely voted for pro-Russian Chevalier just highlights how vapid and superficial the whole movement is. Itâs all about vibes and slogans, with no consistent moral core.
"Accusations of rape ruin men's lives and careers."
You only have to look at how many footballers who have rape accusations against them that happily represent their countries in huge tournaments like the World Cup without anyone really giving a shit to see what bollocks that is.
Women are rarely taken seriously, rarely believed, rarely stood up for, especially when their abusers are rich and famous.
Do you know why people view what is happening in Palestine as a genocide? Iâm a dumbass and Iâm on Twitter for art and friends. I hope youâre ok
Propaganda. People have been calling this conflict (and every single war, exchange or skirmish between israel and Arab insurgents) a "genocide" since the 70s, yet lo and behold the Palestinian population only doubles itself every decade or so, and generally quintoupled since the 50s. Horrible genocide!
Question that I'm asking in good faith because I really do want to know about it: why does Herzl describe israel as a colony if it isn't one?
(All good faith questions are welcome, Anon - thanks for this one!)
TLDR: Because words change meanings over time and Herzl wasn't psychic.
In the 1890s, "colony" just meant a planned settlement or concentrated community. This included Jewish agricultural colonies in the Pale, temperance colonies in Colorado, and utopian communes everywhere.
It was basically the Victorian word for "intentional community," with absolutely no imperial baggage required.
The specific meaning activists now deploy (colony as racial domination, metropole extraction, indigenous suppression) is a 20th century framework that didn't exist when Herzl was writing in 1896.
So a reader of the 21st century finds the word "colony" in an old text and assumes it carries a technical definition that was coined decades later.
It's a little like finding the word "trauma" in a Civil War field report and concluding the surgeon was diagnosing PTSD.
Meanwhile, 'settler colonialism' as applied to Israel isn't a neutral analytical tool that happens to fit badly. It's a framework specifically constructed to exclude the features that distinguish Jewish return from actual settler colonialism...and it still fails on its own stated terms.
Jewish immigrants to the Levant were never agents of any empire. They were overwhelmingly refugees from empires who were fleeing Russian pogroms, Eastern European persecution, and later Nazi Germany. No metropole sent them. No metropole would take them back if the project failed.
That's not a minor quibble about definitions, either - it's the primary distinction between settler colonialism and every other form of large population movement in history.
There's also the matter of indigeneity. The Jews returning to the Levant weren't arriving in a place with which they had no connection.
Jewish presence in the region is documented continuously from ancient history, including in Egyptian records dating to roughly 1210 BCE.
The religious, linguistic, and ancestral connection to the land is what distinguishes this case from the British in Kenya or the French in Algeria, who had no such ties - and it is some of the best-documented, most indisputable history humans have ever gathered. (This is why they're so constantly engaged in historical revisionism.)
So when proponents of the settler colonialism framework of accusation encounter these objections, what do they do?
They move the goalposts.
The absence of a metropole gets explained away as an "exception."
The indigenous origin of the Jewish people to the Levant gets ahistorically dismissed or ignored, despite the fact that the Jewish people are the only group whose national identity, language, and religion originated in and remained oriented toward that specific land throughout their entire existence.
The framework gets rewritten and the history is revised until Israel fits the allegation.
So, one word in Der Judenstaat doesn't settle* any of this.
From The Atlantic: The False Narrative of Settler Colonialism (paywall bypassed)
Okay, there's actually a lot of interesting history around this, so let's dig into it.
It's completely correct that the semiotics of "colony", "colonization", etc., have evolved over time, and that back in the late 19th Century when Herzl was writing the connotation was more neutral than it became in the 20th Century. (I also need to stress that that one "it is something colonial" quote-mine you see shared everywhere is from a letter that was never even sent, because Herzl realized it was a bad idea.)
But more to the point: the old guard Zionists were fully aware of accusations they were European colonizers - and they actively refuted those claims.
â Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined (Jacob Lassner, Ilan S. Troen, 2007)
â Hebrew Repatriation to Eretz Yisrael (Samuel Kruglikoff, 1930)
â Eliahu Eliachar, Testimony to UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) Regarding Jews in Arab Countries (1947)
â Ber Borochov, Poalei Tziyon Peace Manifesto (1917)
â David Ben-Gurion, Statement to the Elected Assembly of Palestine Jewry (1947)
Zionists wrote copious volumes about the indigeneity of Judeans to Eretz Yisrael, and denying accusations that they were merely pawns of an imperialist agenda (initially it was claimed they were Russian agents, and then later British colonists) or seeking to conquer or to exploit the land or its people. Contrary to the popular claim that Zionists thought (or promoted the concept) the land was uninhabited, a very substantial amount was written about the Palestinians (particularly from the perspective of class analysis), and how the return and liberation of Judeans must go hand-in-hand with class solidarity and the liberation of Arab workers. In other words: the exact opposite of colonialism. What we today would call decolonization - and specifically decolonization via proletarian revolution.
The simplistic quote-mining about "colonization" used today is a hundred years outdated: all such arguments were debunked before the state was even founded.
Gotta love how the gay rights, womenâs rights, anti racism, anti classism, labour rights, islamophobia of this entire website go to hell when countries like China are concerned.
Is communism really all that important to you that you can ignore all the horrors these people are doing?
Is it that your propaganda of âcommunism good capitalism badâ really needs to be the only one heard, so the condition of workers in Shein and other companies is hindering you as you protest why communism gives labours rights?
Is your idea of every communist nation being utter utopia so fragile that the reality of horrors in that country really need to be muted?
I donât know man, it feels to me that you guys are âputting your worldviews over peopleâs livesâ.
The âleftâ in the USA has been breathtakingly hypocritical about the plight of Uighurs in particular, but you can see this elsewhere too (cough Ukraine cough), for years at this point. Itâs giving âbut the Soviets had good schools and womenâs rights!â Tell me you are a braindead zealot without telling me you are a braindead zealot.
People need to start thinking critically for a change, and they also need to take a step back from their ideologiesâwhatever those may beâand start thinking in terms of actual principles, like human rights and justice and fairness.ïżŒ
The Leftâs callousness when it comes to the Uyghur genocide still shocks me. There were 12 million Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Their only âcrimeâ was existing as a racial and religious minority group. We donât know how many have been murdered because China is trying to hide any evidence of wrongdoing and so the information we do have is limited and often outdated, and probably does not show the full extent of the horrors going on.
But even what is confirmed is awful. Theyâve put people in camps. Itâs the largest mass in internment of its type since the holocaust. They are subjected to systemic rape, not as random acts of violence (which would be bad enough) but as a planned policy. They are also subjected to Forced sterilizations, mass surveillance, and slavery. Where are the protests? Where are the boycotts? Where is the outrage? Where is the basic human decency that should make anyone care about the suffering of these people - men, women, and children?!
Actual liberals and progressives who value human rights would care about this. But the far left is neither liberal nor progressive. They are a pro-authoritarian hate movement fueled by Russian and Chinese propaganda. Thatâs why theyâre against Ukraine and donât care about the genocide in Xinjiang, and why they constantly prop up MAGA and undermine Democrats.
The thing is a lot of internet communism isnât about how to utilize the philosophy of Marx or whatever, itâs an edge lordâs attempt at filling a how void. Many of these people are ex-alt righters, and instead of deconstructing, they just kinda replaced the old radicalization with the new one.
And the new radicalization is not that different. Far left and far right or both fascism with only very tiny differences. Thereâs a reason the Soviet Union and the Nazi Third Reich were natural allies and worked well together to invade and divide up Eastern Europe while committing horrific war crimes and wouldâve continued to work together if Hitler hadnât betrayed Stalin.
#from what i've seen most self-described internet leftists#are just social conservatives that aren't christian-enough to hang with maga#they still want misogyny and racism and authoritarianism -- they just want it to be based on marx instead of the bible via @sick-sad-little-world
holding firm to one's principles becomes very expensive very fast if one should acknowledge the CPC's (or CCP's, if you prefer) outright genocidal actions against minority groups in their own country. Not to mention how they've propped up the economies of Iran and Russia while those two have been terrorizing and invading their neighbors.
Most "leftists" will only hold a position on issues that don't actually force them to bear a real cost.
Honor, Integrity, Intellectual Honesty... they're all in short-supply once you get out into the wings on either side of this floundering freedumb birb.
But of course those are also the idiots who scream the loudest and try to force everyone else to cater to them, too.
[Image ID: a yellow sticker that reads âYou cannot be anti-fascitst if you are anti-semiticâ in bold black text. It is wet with beads of water on it. /End ID]
By now, almost everyone should have realized that debating pro-Palestinian activists is a complete waste of time. Itâs like debating someone over whether itâs July. Not only do you have to abandon all dignity to keep proving something that is plainly obvious, but youâre also arguing with someone who has no interest in reality and is simply using the conversation to push an agenda. The very fact that youâre forced to âproveâ itâs July means youâve already lost the debate.
The same applies here.
You can show them videos of people in Gaza who are clearly well-fed, overweight, or even obese, and theyâll still insist thereâs a famine.
You can show them hundreds of videos of Gazans crossing into Israel on October 7 and taking part in the massacre and butchery, and theyâll stare at the footage and still claim, âNo, it was only Hamas.â
Theyâll make claim after claim without evidence. Theyâll accuse Israeli snipers of deliberately shooting children, yet years later they still canât produce a single verified video showing an Israeli sniper shooting a child or a child with a verified Israeli bullet wound. Theyâll circulate AI-generated images, recycled footage from other conflicts, and fabricated stories. When those claims are easily debunked, they simply move on to the next one. But again, the very fact that youâre spending your time proving the obvious means youâve already lost the debate.
At some point, you have to ask yourself why youâre still debating people who reject reality whenever it gets in the way of their narrative. Even if you completely dismantle one claim, theyâll invent another the next day, and often repeat the same debunked claim the day after that. They simply donât care whether something is true.
You donât debate someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. You walk away. Otherwise, youâre not participating in a discussion. Youâre volunteering your time to someone who has no intention of being honest.
Have some self-respect and dignity. Stop volunteering to be a useful idiot for these people.
The trick is to figure out just how "lost-cause" that person is. Are they on the fence? Or are they a rigid ideologue whose bias has already been formed and they cannot tolerate being challenged?
Challenging the rigid ideologues won't get you anywhere, I agree. If people can't be intellectually honest within the first few minutes of actual conversation, I tell them that there is no amount of evidence I can give them that will prove to them that their viewpoint is wrong and that they should NOT be proud of that fact.
Challenging those who truly just "go with the flow" and are casually antisemitic because they've been swamped in it their whole lives and genuinely don't know any better but their hearts are in the right place on most issues, they've just been uncritical thinkers and have fallen for propal propaganda.... If they are willing to learn, they may be worth the effort.
Sorting the wheat from the chaff is valuable work.
To me, this carries over to more inchoate pains, like the very real pain we feel when we feel shame after discovering that a stance we hold dear is actually immoral and unethical.
We should not be afraid to talk about our shame. Shame is an emotional pain that tells our brains that we held a bad stance or that it was a bad idea to do/say a thing. We fear talking about it because we don't want people to know that we weren't perfectly correct in all our takes in the first place.
Physical injury is easy to see, easy to empathize with. Emotional Injury is much more difficult for us because it's invisible, we're often filled with shame & guilt or anger over it, all of which rob us of our eloquence, and it feels like it keeps getting worse every time we think about it, and people are so unused to dealing with it and working through it, especially in a public forum, that they're incredibly judgemental about it. There's an astounding failure to empathize and understand.
when two musicians sing into the same microphone and lean in very close to each other⊠like omg are you guys gonna kiss now to relieve the homoerotic tension?đł
Okay, but this is really important: Bruce Springsteen occupied this really weird place in music history. His songs were all from this pessimistic, nihilistic view of an America that had let him down:
Just like the anti-Vietnam War protest songs that we associate with the 1960s, or the early nihilism that spawned punk music in the 1970s. But he didnât *sound* like a punk anarchist; he sounded like a country rock singer. When he released Born in the U.S.A. people completely misinterpreted (or possibly ignored) the lyrics in favor of the tone of the music.
Politicians used his music to promote their âMurica Yes! brand, and he had to literally explain that that was not what he was about. Heâs over here asking when weâre going to have jobs and heathcare, not stanning the politicians who werenât helping the people.
It was also kind of a big deal that he had an integrated band, because even as late as the 1980s music was still kind of segregated and MTV was straight up racist. They refused to play and promote black artists and then claimed that were no black artists in the first place. Michael Jacksonâs record company had to threaten a boycott of their white artists to get MTV to play his Thriller video.
Plus, the first black/white interracial kiss on TV was in 1968 (OG Star Trek). Also it took us until the 70s to get sympathetic gay characters on screen, and the 90s to get gay characters to kiss onscreen. And all of those firsts were met with outrage.
So keep that in mind when you see Bruce Springsteen not just playing with an interracial band, but engaging in an interracial, gay kiss on stage repeatedly.
Passages from American Popular Music by Larry Starr and Christopher Waterman
I used to think that Bruce and Clarence kissing onstage was exuberance, showmanship, and telling racist homophobes to fuck off. Like, they picked up a certain kind of audience and went âRacist homophobes? Not in our house!â And started the kissing then but then I actually looked it up and
It was a story where⊠we remade the city. We remade the city, shaping it into the kind of place where our friendship and our love for one another wouldnât have been such an exceptional thing. - Bruce Springsteen
It wasnât about showmanship or rejecting bigots or anything it was just. Damn right that was one of the loves of his life and damn right he was going to kiss him onstage
It gets me a little that Bruce has had a divorce, that heâs been married twice, but he loved Clarence for the rest of Clarenceâs life and will presumably love him the rest of his own
Clemons said in one interview. âBruce and I looked at each other and didnât say anything, we just knew. We knew we were the missing links in each otherâs lives. He was what Iâd been searching for.â In another version of the story, Clemons says âHe looked at me, and I looked at him, and we fell in love.â
Iâm having some emotions about it!
âHe was elemental in my life,â Springsteen adds, âand losing him was like losing the rain.â
Not just! I love you pure and deep and true but! I am going to love you like that in front of the whole damn world!
We have fewer narratives about taking risks and making statements for platonic love rather than romantic and supposedly it would be easier to downplay this onstage than romance and! They refused! They fucking refused! In front of hundreds of thousands of people, over the course of years! In the spotlight, in word and deed, I love you!
