mouthporn.net
#talking – @jalopyrustbucket on Tumblr
Avatar

The NotABlog

@jalopyrustbucket / jalopyrustbucket.tumblr.com

I haven't been on Tumblr in a few years. I see it hasn't improved at all. This is legitimately one of the worst large cesspools I've seen on the internet. Trust me, I've looked around. Many of you are legitimately evil and psychopathic people, and you think it's *cute*. Stop glorifying mental illness, for everyone's safety.
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
takashi0

Do y'all ever just stop and think about how JKR is the most prominent example of why this Red Scare 2: Nazi Boogaloo shit is awful and why modern American/Western in general Leftists are the most self-defeating dipshits ever because they fundamentally do not understand how radicalization works?

I was waiting for someone to ask for an elaboration, and since you decided to be a cunt I’ll tell you!

Because JKR spent years trying to backflip to appeal to woke cultists who outright berate people for trying to extend any goodwill or placation to them.

Make fun of her cringy post-canon bullshit all you want. Laugh at the “Vanish me poopum” and “X is actually Y representation all along” nonsense by all means. (I know I will!) That doesn’t change the fact she spent decades trying to be woke only to be met with vicious contempt.

And I’m not talking about the mockery and laughter that I’d indulge in and someone like her should’ve expected and was no doubt warned about repeatedly, I’m talking about death threats, actual harassment, and constant slander from media outlets twisting her as a bigot (BEFORE she became a TERF), which would negatively affect pretty much anyone.

Like that “Don’t punish people for doing what you want” post where the moral was “If Success merits the same result as failure people are gonna stop giving a shit.” Maybe someone somewhere tried, probably desperately even to tell her this shit was a dumb idea.

But if she was able to be radicalized into TERFdom under the pretense of “men invading women’s spaces”, combined with apparently some pre-existing trauma(?), then it’s not much of a stretch to imagine being bombarded with the cringe-inducing shit you see on tumblr and twitter and accusations of bigotry over absolutely dumb, trivial bullshit made her flock to the one group that seemed to actually want her. This is why people join Nazis. This is why people join Cults. This is why people keep joining incel forums and groups and that kinda shit: Whether it was the result of their own actions or (almost always) not, people who get ostracized will go to whoever will accept them, regardless of whether that group is a toxic influence.

Because it turns out when you’ve been stomped on, mocked, shamed and whatever for long enough, people won’t care about warnings about how this group is bad, even if for extremely legitimate reasons. And they’ll be more accepting when that bad group tells them “Oh they just hate us because X reasons” and whatever other propaganda they shit down your throat. JKR’s a successful rich white lady in England so by no means am I saying she’s had it as bad as say, some poor white trash fuck in the south who’s been put through the ringer Arthur Fleck style.

I’m saying that Cancel Culture’s bad because it directly creates the very problem it “fights against.” If any of the people who scream day and night about the Orange Man actually gave a FUCK about actually stopping racism and bigotry, they’d stop doing it because we have years worth of evidence that it doesn’t work.

But judging by your attitude there I’m just going to assume this is all falling on deaf ears, so by all means keep being part of the problem. 

Man just once I wish you people weren’t so disgustingly predictable and didn’t prove my point at every single turn. 

Imagine dismissing a person’s entire argument based solely on them having an MLP icon.

I’m not sure when you hopped on to Tumblr, but that’s been an extremely common event to see for around a decade so far.

-

This problem with the Leftist mobs defeating themselves is probably by design, not by accident. 

We know that they rally around their cult leaders and are regularly incited into action by others rather than taking action themselves. From this, we can figure out that they’re a controlled group, especially given all the co-ordination and co-operation from the establishment. The government forces ordered to ignore them and let them burn down cities unopposed for months on end, the multi-billion dollar corporations giving them upwards of a hundred million dollars, the favourable coverage in the news media, et cetera.

The Left also always eats itself. They destabilize whatever society they infiltrate and then set off a purity spiral after they’ve turned whatever they’ve taken over into a hollow shell of it’s former self.

That makes them the perfect weapons. Tools. Useful idiots.Shock troops.

Take an enemy population. Sabotage them and break up the family. Take over the education system so that your enemy’s children spend more waking time with your cult indoctrinators than with their own parents. Do not instill in them useful habits. Rather, instill wokeness into them. Take their soft minds when they’re most fragile and haven’t developed critical thinking skills yet, and fill them with utter nonsense that will prevent them from being effective and happy people in the future. Then, when they’re near the end of their education, they’ll find themselves unable to get a job. (This works better if you also destroy the economy along the way).

At this point, you have a population of people who have little hope of a better life on their own, and they also have a fundamentalist belief in talking points and slogans that YOU decided back when they were children. Offer to pay them peanuts to go protest. Go rally for something. Go act out their aggression on a society they haven’t been prepared for. Give their urge to destroy an outlet and a target. Due to their own behaviour at this point, once they start drinking the kool-aid, they’ll have little choice but to continue. They’re all mentally ill. Their maturation and growth has been sabotaged. They have been made to be less competent and prepared than their forefathers, and they’ve been dropped into a society that’s in the process of being gutted.

They know that something’s wrong. They want to make it right, but they’re not equipped to understand how. So they jump at the first, most immediate solution offered to them.

I think I may have wandered a bit from the point, so I’ll regroup here. Their only option is to be part of the cult. But the cult is one that was formed based on rabid attacks on heretics. The criteria for what a heretic is ever-changing. They’re all in competition with each other to be as woke as they can possibly be. To do that, they all have to virtue signal as much as possible, at every available opportunity. Their chances at jobs literally depends on it.

This ever-more-fervent virtue signalling has no end point. The cult does not have the concept of forgiveness in it. Every prior act that used to be considered okay is in danger of being considered “evil” in the future, due to no fixed morality system.

Regrouping again: You have a mentally ill slave army that will tear itself apart the minute that it’s no longer being pointed at new targets by their masters. And they’re all being taken from the children of your hated enemy. 

One of the most important things once things get really hot at the later stages, it’s important to make sure that the people who notice the patterns get vilified the most harshly. If people start to listen, there’s a chance that things could be turned around.

Hey, @takashi0, I think you have a pretty good example of the mechanic in action. What do you think of my rundown of how it seems to work?

Avatar

I’m sorry, but if you smoke (or drink) while you’re pregnant and you know that you’re pregnant, I’m just not going to think of you as a worthwhile human being.

(This opinion is based from when I was walking out of work one evening and heard a couple talking. The guy asked the woman, who was smoking, ‘Aren’t you pregnant?’ and her response was ‘Only a couple of months’)

BODILY AUTONOMY! BODILY AUTONOMY! BODILY AUTONOMY!

If you use “bodily autonomy” as a defense of abortion, then you should have no problem with someone drinking and smoking while pregnant.

Avatar
middriff

NO. That is completely different. There is a difference between not having a child, and having a child that will be disabled because of recklessness during a pregnancy.

What’s the difference between aborting a child (killing it), or injuring a child?

A fetus is not a child, it’s a fetus.

Two problems with that response:

1) You said earlier, and I quote, “There is a difference between not having a CHILD, and having a child that will be disabled…”. You called it a child earlier, and now you’re saying it’s not a child, it’s a fetus? You misspoke? How convenient.

2) According the dictionary, it is both child and fetus. But more importantly, what kind of fetus do you think it is? A lion fetus? A dog fetus? Tough question, I know.

Now you may have never heard the bodily autonomy argument before. But kept to its logical outcome, it is unreasonable for you to tell someone else what they can and can’t do with their own body, right? So please explain to me the logical pathway between telling a pregnant woman she shouldn’t drink alcohol, and telling a pregnant woman it’s okay to kill her baby? Why is one okay to advocate for and one isn’t? Where is the consistency? Or do you just refuse to change your mind on the whole “bodily autonomy” argument out of stubbornness and ideology?

The earlier post was not referring to the fetus as a child, it was referring to the outcomes of having an abortion and smoking, respectively.

His/her words were “There is a difference between not having a child, and having a child that will be disabled”. It was called a CHILD. That was no accident. “Not having a child”, aka abortion, by saying that, he admitted it was a child. Even if it was on accident, it was still convenient and mildly amusing.

Referring to what will happen in the future if the actions were performed. It did not directly refer to the fetus.

Yes it did. He directly referred to the fetus. Seriously? It’s right there above this part of the conversation. You can read it plain as day. It’s not that I just don’t believe you, it’s that you’re just blatantly wrong.

Your post described actions perpetrated on the fetus directly, and described the fetus as a child.

The fetus is a child. It is a human fetus. And by definition, a child both actually and metaphorically.

[1] “There is a difference between not having a child, and having a child that will be disabled

The operative words here are "having a child". This refers to an event. An outcome. A potential thing-that-can-happen.

A child (indefinite article), not the child (definite article). The child is a part of the event in question, not the central part of the subject. The "child" in this sentence is only being referred to indirectly. It is not an actual part of what is being discussed.

[1.1] Lets do this again and swap a couple words around. Remember, I'm arguing grammar here.

"There is a difference between not eating a hamburger, and eating a hamburger that will be soggy"

The operative words here are "eating a hamburger". A verb and a noun. This mimics the exact grammatical structure of the sentence in question. This is an event. A thing that can happen.

In this example, we're not talking about hamburgers or food. We'd be talking about how the food would be treated, talking about the actions that would be done to the food. In this case, the discussion would probably be about someone either not eating hamburgers, or using way too many condiments on one, thus ruining part of the experience of eating a hamburger.

[2] Your exact words were: "What’s the difference between aborting a child (killing it), or injuring a child?"

The operative words are verbs. The verbs clearly interact with the subject in a way that the previous sentence did not.

The thing being described is an act that is performed on the child.

[2.1] Quick example time.

"What's the difference between throwing away a hamburger (ruining it), or burning a hamburger?"

Again, in this grammatical model, the operative words are specific actions that are being done to the hamburgers. The actions themselves are what is being described.

[3] The first grammatical model discusses the outcomes of choices. The second grammatical model discusses actions being performed on a subject, with only a brief aside in parentheses that describes one of the outcomes.

Edit: Damn it. Tumblr messed up my formatting. Hope it works out this time.

Avatar

I’m sorry, but if you smoke (or drink) while you’re pregnant and you know that you’re pregnant, I’m just not going to think of you as a worthwhile human being.

(This opinion is based from when I was walking out of work one evening and heard a couple talking. The guy asked the woman, who was smoking, ‘Aren’t you pregnant?’ and her response was ‘Only a couple of months’)

BODILY AUTONOMY! BODILY AUTONOMY! BODILY AUTONOMY!

If you use “bodily autonomy” as a defense of abortion, then you should have no problem with someone drinking and smoking while pregnant.

Avatar
middriff

NO. That is completely different. There is a difference between not having a child, and having a child that will be disabled because of recklessness during a pregnancy.

What’s the difference between aborting a child (killing it), or injuring a child?

A fetus is not a child, it’s a fetus.

Two problems with that response:

1) You said earlier, and I quote, “There is a difference between not having a CHILD, and having a child that will be disabled…”. You called it a child earlier, and now you’re saying it’s not a child, it’s a fetus? You misspoke? How convenient.

2) According the dictionary, it is both child and fetus. But more importantly, what kind of fetus do you think it is? A lion fetus? A dog fetus? Tough question, I know.

Now you may have never heard the bodily autonomy argument before. But kept to its logical outcome, it is unreasonable for you to tell someone else what they can and can’t do with their own body, right? So please explain to me the logical pathway between telling a pregnant woman she shouldn’t drink alcohol, and telling a pregnant woman it’s okay to kill her baby? Why is one okay to advocate for and one isn’t? Where is the consistency? Or do you just refuse to change your mind on the whole “bodily autonomy” argument out of stubbornness and ideology?

The earlier post was not referring to the fetus as a child, it was referring to the outcomes of having an abortion and smoking, respectively. Referring to what will happen in the future if the actions were performed. It did not directly refer to the fetus.

Your post described actions perpetrated on the fetus directly, and described the fetus as a child.

PS: I have the reply for our other exchange sitting in my drafts right now. I'm just taking time to deal with stuff in real life for now while digesting it.

PPS: Before you say it, yes. I am well aware that this is essentially how our last exchange began.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
cyrilthewolf

Man ocremix is loving me these days :P 

Hell yeah! I love this kind of music!

How is this ocremix loving you? This seems to be the same kind of treatment all their songs get.

http://ocremix.org/info/Audio_Engineering:_A_Tribute_to_Cid I was also on that! It was released like a week ago. 

it’s just funny because I do so little for remixing anymore. D:

It just looks like you're getting the same amount of credit as anyone else. Were you being streamlined through the approval process? I've heard the odd allegation of favouritism in OC Remix (phrased more crudely than that), but this seems pretty normal.

By "ocremix is loving me these days :P", did you just mean that the last few songs you've made have been published through them rather than through youtube and EqD?

The brony music community has basically replaced OC Remix in terms of where I get most of my new music that isn't a game or show soundtrack, so I'm pretty out of the loop there.

Avatar
reblogged

I hate them, hate them, hate them and they only make it harder for the LGBT to be taken seriously and to fight stereotypes.

How are scantily clad men dancing in the street and acting like gay strippers supposed to be helping us? Opponents and the right wing think of us as sexual deviants and we always go, “Nooooooo! We act like everybody else!” But then the parades come around and it’s time to bust out the neon thongs, heels, and anything rainbow to wave and put on our butts as they’re shaking all over the place.

This might be me as a lesbian who hates the male anatomy but it only makes the whole “sexual freak and out there” stereotype harder to fight. Maybe if they made it less raunchy, less flashy, and actually did more than focus on males and remembered the lesbians, I’d change my mind. Cause I might love NSFW material but lord have mercy, don’t go parading it in the street in the colors of the rainbow.

I have never been to a pride parade, I have no desire to go to a pride parade, and I probably wouldn't support a pride parade if someone was asking for donations or reblogs.

I imagine the original purpose behind those parades is to put glbt stuff in the spotlight to get random people to notice it and get used to the idea, because a significant portion of the reaction of people to glbt stuff is based on how much exposure they've had with the concept. I think it's so colourful, attention grabbing, and loud because they wanted that many more people to notice.

It seems to have become nothing more than a loud attention-grabbing spectacle, and I agree with the sentiment that this is bad. This assumes that the intent is to raise awareness or promote understanding and extend olive branches to promote peace and stuff. If we look at it as just another excuse to have some kind of a public festival or party, then it's doing that job pretty well from what I head and see. I just think that going for the loud flamboyant party vibe sacrifices a lot of the potential of a somewhat more subdued kind of parade.

I have, however, eaten lunch in my campus's lgbt room and had some pretty good conversations with the other people in there. So far, most of the people I've talked to who mentioned that they're gay have been pretty cool people.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net