Hate Wins and Love Loses

It is not damaging “your children”. Children are part of that “we”.

I got blocked for this.

Anyway, if you see someone 11 or around on Tumblr, just advise them to keep their age private for safety, or, alternatively, don't interact. Anything's better than being a fucking snitch. Young people are already socially isolated, don't make it worse. That's like reporting someone for being actively suicidal (also against Tumblr TOS).

"But what if they're gonna get targeted by groomers!"

That's why I advise you to reach out to them and tell them to remove the age. Getting their account suspended will not help them against groomers either, they'll remake tomorrow, they'll just feel like shit about everything. And they might be more desperate for a social connection.

"But they're too stupid to take care of themselves!"

There's very little difference between 11 and 13, if any at all. 13 is an arbitrary number. If someone's bad at self protection at 11, they're not gonna get any better waiting 1 year and a few months in social isolation.

"You just want adults to prey on them!"

Adults are gonna prey on them irl. I did not have internet access till adulthood, and I still was sexually abused. What helped me understand it was sexual abuse was accessing resources online years later. If I had internet at 11, I'd notice immediately.

sometimes people dont really understand that having schizophrenia doesn’t permalock me as an angsty 13 year old evanescence fan

How do you think I, a person with terrifying delusions that feel real, feel when people put this on my dash?

they’re doing bi lesbian / trans men lesbian discourse on twitter again and mostly it makes me happy that i’ve cultivated a space here where i do not see the dumb shit people say about bi + trans men lesbians . tumblr is great. love my followers . love bi lesbians and trans men lesbians

they’re really mad over this image which is so ironic actually

I am also mad over this image, because there's no reason to drag age into this. Do better.

No because fuck the ageism actually

Fixed it further.

[Image description 1/3:

A comic depicting two stylized figures marked as “trans man” (also having a trans flag with a male symbol on their chest) and “transmasc lesbian” (also having a transmasc & lesbian flags on their chest) confidently smiling, with trans man’s hand on transmasc lesbian’s shoulder, a heart shape between them, and words below them: “we r happy and in love”. On the other side of the image, another stylized figure is jumping up into the air, crying and screaming. They are marked as “random twitter user (most likely 15 year old)” and are saying a line, in all caps: “nooooo!! I’m being invalidated”.

/End image description 1/3]

_

[Image description 2/3:

An edit of that comic, with the words “(most likely 15 year old)” erased.

/End image description 2/3]

_

[Image description 3/3:

A different comic. Two stylized figures, marked as “trans male lesbian” and “non-male transmasc mspec lesbian” are sitting on some surface and crying, with the former’s hand on the latter’s shoulder and a heart shape between them. The latter is saying: “Exclusionism sucks I’m so tired”. The former is saying: “& all the fucking essentialism too”. On the other side, a stylized figure with a mildly annoyed expression is typing on a computer. Below them is a text, with an arrow pointing to them: “*is writing a very level-sounding detailed post about why they think male & mspec lesbians are wrong*”. Below that is a box with the text: “this was made by a male mspec lesbian. Tumblr: dyspunktional-revan”.

/End image description 3/3]

BDSM is fine, except for binding people which is fucked up, and dominating people which is fucked up, and sadism which is- lets be real- pretty fucked up, and masochism which is honestly lowkey pathetic

this is what gays under 20 sound like when they talk about kink at pride

Why are we pinning this on age again? As if the majority of “kink critical” people who spread this rhetoric in the first place aren’t in their 30s-40s.

Yep, no restrictions

I'd advise some restrictions on size for younger ages, but that's about it.

These aren't "adult toys", you puritan fucks, masturbation is a human right.

"with parental consent" you know that's called parental CSA right (to clarify: parents having a say, not the potential of it being allowed)

i actually dont give a shit if hamas did everything and worse that israel accuses them of it still doesn't justify killing 30000 random civilians

this is literally the least radical position you could have btw it's literally just normal fucking morals. every day i live in disbelief that people are saying "it's complicated". there's nothing complicated about saying "killing 30000 civilians including children, journalists, doctors, and human rights officials is bad"

Personally I think nothing justifies killing babies and bombing hospitals.

Like i am asking them to just stop bombing people and killing kids.

I can't believe it's a radical point.

I know we said "Fuck them kids" but i was under the impression that nobody would be fine with "Kill them kids." Like...That's a whole ass new sentence that doesn't give a good vibe.

.

Who is “we”? Maybe you were in circles where casual adultism/bigotry and hatred/denigration of children (whether “ironic” or “sincere,” it doesn’t matter) was permitted, but not everyone else was. The fact that people have such ease perpetuating adultism and devaluing children’s lives and subjectivities is literally the problem, and no liberal halfway point/concession will get children, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable children, to where they actually need.

“Attracted to them books” LMFAOOOO

@carrie-frances​ im screaming 

Idk who needs to hear that, but testing out ways to express your sexuality and other aspects of your identity is more important than grades.

You can do well in school, you can do poorly, for as long as you hit some bare minimum and pass, this will be completely irrelevant in the next 10 years. Meanwhile if you are forced to go through important stages of socialization later than what feels right for you, it’s going to make a huge dent in your social life for the foreseeable future.

Also, don’t make puns at people who share something intimate with you. That’s nasty.

Man, Zionists are getting insecure about their settler-state to such an extent even calling their murderous military IOF is somehow antisemitic?

not quite bingo, but 7 squares in one sentence is still impressive.

I'm not posting the homicidal tantrum that was just left in my asks, but here's an actual adult response to whoever anon'd me and anyone else who's wondering.

OP, here's why you crossed those squares off:

"IOF" - you called them the IOF despite the fact they aren't a military offensive. They are a defense force. They are defending Israel. If you want to argue there's an unacceptable number of casualties, I'll definitely listen (and probably agree), but insisting they're an offense force and not a defense force is simply a lie intended to demonize and discredit them.

Without the IDF, literal millions of Jews would be killed. This is unequivocal. Ignoring that fact is antisemitic, even if it's in pursuit of support for Palestine.

"Ignores Arab colonialism" - Again, calling the IDF the IOF ignores the fact they exist primarily to defend Israel from invasion from MENA states, as has happened since day 1.

"Modern-day blood libel" - the IDF is not murderous. I'm sure some rogue soldiers enjoy killing, as with any army. But the IDF is not a murderous institution. It doesn't exist to commit murder. It exists to defend Israel and its civilian population, including the hostages currently held by Hamas. If the IDF's intention were murder, they wouldn't keep trying to negotiate with Hamas. They wouldn't agree to ceasefires. But they do. They want peace. Furthermore, almost every Israeli citizen is required to do military service when they turn 18. They don't join the military for the purpose of committing murder. They join because they're legally required to, and because if they don't, enemy states and groups like Hamas will kill them and their loved ones. Reducing that motive to "murderous" is a form of modern-day blood libel. Israelis are not bloodthirsty, they're scared.

"Settler Colonial" - you called Israel a settler state. It is not a settler state. Jews are indigenous to Israel.

"Jews aren't indigenous to Israel" - you called Israel a settler-state. It is not a settler state. Jews are indigenous to Israel.

"Denies leftist antisemitism" - the whole point of your comment was denying leftist antisemitism when it was pointed out to you.

"Harassing random diaspora Jews" - you said "Zionists are getting insecure about their settler state" and referred to "their murderous military" - who are they? Zionists? Because the diaspora is full of zionists. The IDF is not their military. Zionism is an ideology. It doesn't have a military. Many zionists (such as cultural zionists, labour zionists, and even some political zionists) don't support the IDF or the current realization of the ideal of zionism. What you mean are Israeli citizens who support the IDF. Using the word "zionists" so loosely means throwing a large number of diaspora Jews under the bus, regardless of whether they support the IDF or what's happening in Gaza.

Now please stop telling me to kill myself.

This is such a waste of time and shows that you've digested so much Zionist propaganda that you're writing paragraphs trying to excuse the IOF and defend them of clear cases of warcrimes and a current genocide. And yet you're pro-ACAB. Leftism dies quickly with Zionism.

The IOF have committed so many war crimes that they can barely be recognized as a defensive force. The invasion of Southern Lebanon, the killing of Palestinians in the Great return of March, Al-Aqsa flood, the protection and enabling of illegal settlers on Palestinian land, bombing hospitals, mosques, churches, universities, libraries, women, children. And you still wanna put up with this idiotic charade?

Israel is a settler-colonial ethno-state. Zionist organizations founded by Theodore Herzl, for example, named themselves “colonization associations,” such as the “Jewish Colonization Association” and “The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association,” which is also known by its Yiddish acronym PICA. Nor was there any attempt to disguise the true goal of Zionism when its leaders named the “The Jewish Colonial Trust,” which was founded in 1899. The goal was already clear from the very beginning! Your first prime minister and war criminal David Ben-Gurion told a meeting of the Jewish Agency: I support compulsory transfer (of Palestinians). I don't see anything immoral in it.

You're just some white settler in another settler state espousing settler colonialism. Shut the hell up and don't comment any further on my post.

There is genuinely no such thing as an inappropriate book for a child.

People in the tags who read Clan of the Cave Bear or Flowers in the Attic, but did you fucking die? You are fine like every other kid exposed to Jondalar’s turgid, upright member was fine. These are clearly ideal books for nine year olds because so many very alive and unharmed former nine year olds read the shit out of them and many adults find them boring.

Would you really be such a John Hughes adult kind of hypocrite as to rip the inspiring tale of Ayla, who invented aspirin, knitting and cunnilingus during the last ice age out of an elementary schooler’s hand?

If you don’t want kids to read a book, don’t allow it to portray a child’s actual, relateable anxieties around puberty, sex, adulthood and their parents in the most high gothic way possible. This is like preventing incest by locking your adolescent grandchildren in a small room with no access to non-family members.

-- Mitch Hedberg

I think we need to start being more nuanced with this take because yeah kids could probably read anything at 16-17 years old, but it's if they should.

Like not in a "I don't want my kids to read XYZ book" but in a "Are they actually capable of understanding and processing the material in the book properly."

Teenagers are not mentally adults. They will not be able to comprehend certain things because those are things that come with age, and life experience.

If you are willing to help guide a teenager through adult materials up to and including when to recognize when you should stop reading a book, then feel free to show whatever feel is going to help the child.

If you aren't willing to do this and just chuck a bunch of books at a teenager, then you're just setting them up for failure.

And if anyone has problems I'm an adult fiction writer who's a mom. My books read at 6th-8th grade reading level, because I write in casual, easy to digest language, much like how this post is written.

No. Did I fucking stutter? This is not a nuanced issue and especially in this dangerous political context, people who care about children should absolutely not yield to the opinions of shitty parents such as yourself.

I wasn’t even talking about teens! I was talking about elementary age kids reading sexual content not adolescents encountering new or difficult concepts! Jesus Christ! I think it’s genuinely worse than the moms for liberty style censorship to censor materials simple because an adult has made the call about what they might find easy enough to understand! How is a teenager supposed to gain wisdom and experiences if a bunch adult busy-bodies prevent them from exercising their own judgement about what they want to learn? At what point is someone who’s old enough to drive, have sex and be sentenced to life in prison also allowed to pick their own reading material? How is a person going to be able to understand or absorb ideas if they never get challenging practice?

I am an extremist on this because this is an issue of children’s basic human rights. It’s what American Library Association President Emily Drabinski calls a child’s “right to a private reading life” and“right to their own imagination and the sovereignty of their own minds.” Even your children have that right, despite having been born to a small-minded little tyrant who treats exposure to new ideas like a traumatic event. Yes, just throw books at teenagers! Let them be aware of a world outside their intellectually suffocating home life!

The idea that a seventeen-year-old might need their reading monitored absolutely horrifies me. Yeah, if we're talking about seven-year-olds, they might benefit from a bit more guidance, although I'm still in favour of giving them free rein in the library. But a seventeen-year-old? Teens are not adults, teens are kids in the process of becoming adults, and books are one of the safest means of gaining adult knowledge.

If a kid is traumatized - not briefly upset, but traumatized - by a book, then there was already something very wrong in their life long before they got to that book, and they need help, but definitely not with the book.

I personally believe books should have ratings like movies. Like, I picked up a Stephen King book when I was 10 that introduced me to things that even know that I'm 30 give me shudders. I should not have been allowed to read that. Like, I get that the war on banning books is bad, but some books should be essentially rated R, or pg13 like movies are. A 10 year old should not be able to read a book that depicts a brutal rape because the cover seemed cool.

This conversation has already taught me that the teenage Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution had some valid points, but I now personally believe that we should do Cultural Revolution to you, personally. May you and everyone with this stupid opinion be beaten to death by a mob of tween Stehen King fans.

Books should have fucking warnings. Not every thirty year old will be thrilled to read a book that depicts a brutal rape either. Everyone should know what they are getting into and then decide for themself whether they want to get into it or not.

There is genuinely no such thing as an inappropriate book for a child.

People in the tags who read Clan of the Cave Bear or Flowers in the Attic, but did you fucking die? You are fine like every other kid exposed to Jondalar’s turgid, upright member was fine. These are clearly ideal books for nine year olds because so many very alive and unharmed former nine year olds read the shit out of them and many adults find them boring.

Would you really be such a John Hughes adult kind of hypocrite as to rip the inspiring tale of Ayla, who invented aspirin, knitting and cunnilingus during the last ice age out of an elementary schooler’s hand?

If you don’t want kids to read a book, don’t allow it to portray a child’s actual, relateable anxieties around puberty, sex, adulthood and their parents in the most high gothic way possible. This is like preventing incest by locking your adolescent grandchildren in a small room with no access to non-family members.

-- Mitch Hedberg

I think we need to start being more nuanced with this take because yeah kids could probably read anything at 16-17 years old, but it's if they should.

Like not in a "I don't want my kids to read XYZ book" but in a "Are they actually capable of understanding and processing the material in the book properly."

Teenagers are not mentally adults. They will not be able to comprehend certain things because those are things that come with age, and life experience.

If you are willing to help guide a teenager through adult materials up to and including when to recognize when you should stop reading a book, then feel free to show whatever feel is going to help the child.

If you aren't willing to do this and just chuck a bunch of books at a teenager, then you're just setting them up for failure.

And if anyone has problems I'm an adult fiction writer who's a mom. My books read at 6th-8th grade reading level, because I write in casual, easy to digest language, much like how this post is written.

No. Did I fucking stutter? This is not a nuanced issue and especially in this dangerous political context, people who care about children should absolutely not yield to the opinions of shitty parents such as yourself.

I wasn’t even talking about teens! I was talking about elementary age kids reading sexual content not adolescents encountering new or difficult concepts! Jesus Christ! I think it’s genuinely worse than the moms for liberty style censorship to censor materials simple because an adult has made the call about what they might find easy enough to understand! How is a teenager supposed to gain wisdom and experiences if a bunch adult busy-bodies prevent them from exercising their own judgement about what they want to learn? At what point is someone who’s old enough to drive, have sex and be sentenced to life in prison also allowed to pick their own reading material? How is a person going to be able to understand or absorb ideas if they never get challenging practice?

I am an extremist on this because this is an issue of children’s basic human rights. It’s what American Library Association President Emily Drabinski calls a child’s “right to a private reading life” and“right to their own imagination and the sovereignty of their own minds.” Even your children have that right, despite having been born to a small-minded little tyrant who treats exposure to new ideas like a traumatic event. Yes, just throw books at teenagers! Let them be aware of a world outside their intellectually suffocating home life!

psst. hey

people who are legal adults who want their tubes tied or top surgery etc etc should be able to do so full stop.

"oh but what if they regret it for the rest of their lives"

okay. so what.

Adults make decisions about our lives, that's what being an adult is. We may decide to get a face tattoo, or quit a promising job, or join the army, or move to another country.

That's practically all we do as adults. We make decisions that effect the rest of our life, and then we live, or sometimes die, accordingly. Maybe i'll spend the rest of my life regretting telling my influential boss he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but, as an adult, that's the kind of life decision i am allowed to make for myself. And after all, it might be the best thing i ever did. It's my life, and i get to do all the fucking around and all the finding out i want to.

surgical transition, or sterilization, or whatever... is exactly the same. If you aren't going to let a legally adult person decide for themself about that stuff, then you can't let them get a tattoo or move to Florida either

The right to be wrong is one of the most fundamental rights there is. If people try to take away your liberty whenever they think you'll regret your decisions, your liberty doesn't mean much.

The whole "adult" thing in this post drives me fucking insane. I don't even want to talk it out (okay, I did end up with a rant), just, if you think bodily autonomy only applies from a certain age, Fuck You. This is probably the most adultist post of that kind I've seen, usually they just mention "if they are old enough" and "[x category] are not children" like once each but this one literally makes the Entire Point that deserving autonomy is an adult thing.

The "legally adult" part also makes this so fucking laughable. Your right to autonomy is determined by your local laws! That is why there shouldn't be other local laws restricting your autonomy. Jesus fucking christ??

And fun how apparently according to the op at, for example, 12 y/o, you are not old enough to decide you never want to carry children, but are old enough to carry children, then, I guess!

Or not old enough to decide they don't want breasts, but old enough to live with unwanted breasts. Ee tee cee.

And less on the general topic but lol no, actually, if someone decides to join the army they are not making a choice about their autonomy only, they are also deciding, you know, to join the army. Which in many cases just means joining in on imperialism in an active part!

I was browsing BoyChat (I know, I know) and I came across this thread from today:

(Archived here.)

The post links to this Amazon page selling the book:

The BC post provides an excerpt. Some screenshots:

I’m sure everyone here realizes how incredibly fucked up this is. It is completely unacceptable for Amazon to host this exploitative content (and in general it is completely not okay for this publication to be out there glorifying a dead sexual predator while he likely has never been held to account, nor the other men involved in carrying out or facilitating these crimes here).

Also note that Edmund Marlowe, the OP/friend of the deceased abuser, has multiple other books on Amazon (along with a whole profile page containing a Gmail address); he also runs a pederasty propaganda site which has a “contact” page listing another Gmail address if you’d like to make your feelings known.

You can read about Amazon’s community guidelines and how to report violations of it here:

I would appreciate if more people reblogged to spread this information so it can reach a larger audience.

Lol I’m getting hatemail for this post already? So soon??

(*I do not have POCD or schizophrenia, lol.)

You know what? I don't care about anything you have to say.

@ mutuals y'all better not put this post on my dash.

I recently found a post on r/Morbidquestions that asked "Why are the majority of mass shooters teenagers?" Here are some of the responses the post got:

This shit is honestly infuriating...

I'm getting too tired to argue with people about this anymore. It feels like I'm screaming into a vacuum.

The answer to the question should have been: "No, they aren't, stop believing ageist propaganda", or alternatively, "fuck you".

The more likely an incidence of mass violence is to benefit the propaganda of people in power, the more likely you are to hear about it.

@fatboytitty DING, DING! You answered the question correctly. The media and politicians tend to keep quiet about people over 25 being violent. The January 6th terrorist attack wasn’t primarily made up of teens.

objectively good idea

I am once again reminding everyone that the purpose of these bills is to pave the way for requiring government approval ID verification to use the internet

When you ask government to do the jobs parents should be doing, not only will they objectively do a terrible job, they will use the opportunity to take away more of your privacy and infringe further upon your rights.

Everybody in this thread should shut the fuck up and if we'd ever cross in analog space I swear I'd fucking kill you

"people under 18 should be isolated" vs "it's bad because it harms people over 18 and also people under 18 should be isolated but by their immediate abusers not by the state"