adiscourseblog

[adiscourseblog]

@mystical-introvert You do realise that methane gas lasts fuck all time in the atmosphere, right? And that humans also produce methane gas.. The thing about cows producing methane gas is that it’s part of the carbon cycle. The only problem with things like this is when it comes from outside the carbon cycle, because it increases the amount of carbon in the cycle. That’s the problem that’s causing climate change, not cow farts.

Also, the difference between vegan crops and the crops that are fed to farm animals are the fact that things like quinoa aren’t usually given to livestock; you probably can, but it’s easier and cheaper for farmers to feed them other things, when the more “exotic” grains and other non-meat produce are fairly expensive and the market is mainly geared toward vegans than toward those farmers, making it excruciatingly hard to make a profit if they were to be using them for livestock, rather than selling them directly to consumers.

You also talk about deforestation...you do realise that veganism does the exact same thing, right? You can’t make farmland for crops without removing what was originally there—which, by the way, means many, many animals are killed or will later die due to the fact their habitat has been destroyed.

But no, keep telling everyone that it’s just meat-eaters that are the problem.

Imagine being such a pretentious little piece of shit that you actually think you have any right to decide what and how another person should eat.

[adiscourseblog]

The same can be said when you forcibly label people as "SGA".

I must admit, it’s quite interesting that many aphobes are against using the term “queer"—which has been reclaimed by much of the community for decades—yet will happily force “SGA” upon everyone, without regard for the fact it doesn’t work for non-straight people who are also not attracted to the same gender (namely nonbinary people), and the fact this is a conversion therapy term.

If you’re going to find a way to be exclusionary of people whose oppression you want to ignore, at least find a way to not use largely unreclaimed oppressive language that is still in use in torture methods toward the entire community—including those who are ace and aro.

The difference between queer and SGA is that the former has been reclaimed by a majority of the LGBTQIA+ community. The latter has not, and likely will not, considering the way it is also currently being used by REGs.

[adiscourseblog]

I must admit, it’s quite interesting that many aphobes are against using the term “queer"—which has been reclaimed by much of the community for decades—yet will happily force “SGA” upon everyone, without regard for the fact it doesn’t work for non-straight people who are also not attracted to the same gender (namely nonbinary people), and the fact this is a conversion therapy term.

If you’re going to find a way to be exclusionary of people whose oppression you want to ignore, at least find a way to not use largely unreclaimed oppressive language that is still in use in torture methods toward the entire community—including those who are ace and aro.

The difference between queer and SGA is that the former has been reclaimed by a majority of the LGBTQIA+ community. The latter has not, and likely will not, considering the way it is also currently being used by REGs.

[adiscourseblog]

Just about any word will lump oppressed people with their oppressors unless it's specific to the point it is no longer beneficial to be made a community. Hell, saying "man" lumps poor men with rich men, trans men with cis men, men of colour with white men, etc.; it's the most ridiculous argument you could make.

If lumping people in with their oppressors is forbidden, then you cannot use LGBT, as it lumps us trans people in with cisgender people, it lumps women in with men, etc.

Maybe learn how intersectionality, demographics, and just plain fucking language work before making such awful arguments for the sake of discourse

[adiscourseblog]

And let's not forget that being transgender used to be considered the "extreme" end of being gay, and thus transphobia was then (and sometimes still is) misdirected homophobia; by the same logic that exclusionists use against a-specs, trans people aren't oppressed either.

But they are.

You can't twist something that happens in many circumstances to fit only one and still have it be a valid argument in the discussion. It must apply to all or to none. You cannot pick and choose.

Talking about one’s experiences can be a stressful task that involves an incredible amount of vulnerability and trust. It’s risky. That being said, it’s never appropriate to take the experiences someone is sharing with you and to redefine them to suit your agenda. 

For example, an asexual person may discuss a problem they experience due to prejudicial/discriminatory attitudes about asexuality. It is not appropriate to then tell them that their experiences are just “misdirected” forms of bigotry, in order to placate your desire to prove that asexuals don’t have real problems.

That is completely uncalled for. You are not them. You cannot determine for them how they should interpret negative experiences. Your own bias heavily shapes your perception of their experiences, and what you are doing is disempowering and dangerous to people surviving these situations. 

So, don’t do it. Also, consider that your own ideas may be prejudicial and/or discriminatory if your knee jerk reaction to someone sharing something deeply painful is to take the power out of their hands to define that experience and to label it something else in order to make you feel better about your bigotry. 

[adiscourseblog]

Okay, but it is VERY much like Hitler's rise to power, and you speak over many, many, many Jewish people who are calling Trump's behaviour out for being almost exactly how Hitler's was.

Sure, don't allow politics on your blog—that's absolutely okay, and even encouraged, considering the nature of your blog—but DO NOT talk over those who have been through those things, or who still experience horrible antisemitism and talk about the parallels between Trump and Hitler, because that is what you do when you tell people that it's nothing like it and you insult those who went through it. I don't know if any of you are Jewish, but this still goes if you are, however it makes your behaviour even worse if you aren't.

new rule: no irl politics

In confessions, please no:

saying you want to punch / physically harm elected people of some certain country. I get where you’re coming from but let’s not right here, right now.

Don’t compare today’s occurrences to past historical events in european countries, such as that one country across the pond and to the right of the UK, past France, but before Poland and/or Czech Republic, etc. [Seriously it’s nothing like that and, at the very best, it’s insulting to people who survived that.]

Calling for groups to punch / injure Nazis. [again, not right here, not right now]

References to the american president.

just references to politics in this life.

Thank you.

[adiscourseblog]

Discourse Harassment

Don’t do it.

I don’t care what side of the discourse you’re on, it’s wrong, damaging, and dangerous, to everyone. At the very least, it gives ammunition against your side, and at the worst, it can lead to people’s deaths.

Death threats are illegal. You can be arrested and charged for making them—yes, even through anonymous asks. Especially if that person actually does end up dead. Suicide baiting is much the same.

Misgendering is awful, and shows that you don’t care about people’s identities—especially when it’s those of trans and nonbinary people. It doesn’t matter if you think they deserve it, it’s still the wrong thing, and hurts many, many people. Calling people cishets comes under this. If they’re a “traitor” to you, it doesn’t matter; respect their identity.

Incessant “delete your blog” messages do nothing but contribute to the stress someone may already have going on; even if they’re an asshole, you don’t need to add to it. It’s going to amount to nothing, and ultimately harm innocent people.

Dehumanisation is what we fight against, yet I see so many of you doing it; just because you disagree with someone or they have an abhorrent excuse of an opinion doesn’t justify unwinding our progress on human rights. We’re still fighting, and this makes our fight longer and harder. This is especially the case when you use this to justify any other form of hate.

Flooding tags with inappropriate and triggering content, especially tags like a/ce pos/itiv/ity which gets NSFW (no, not PDA, actual sexually explicit content) and negativity stuffed into it. Aside from the fact it’s in the wrong place and can cause issues for many for all sorts of reasons, I see so many people who show support for survivors of all sorts of traumatic events; prove that you mean it by keeping your content in check. You all know damn well you’re posting content in places it doesn’t belong, and that it has a high likelihood to be triggering to many people who use those spaces. Stop it and show your support for these people.

I make my stances on any matter abundantly clear and shut people down to the point they are grasping for straws—and only with actual facts. You all should do the same; be respectful, do not further contribute to harassment, and do not fabricate things just because they suit you. It doesn’t work, and ultimately hurts your cause, irrespective of which “side” you’re on.

Feel free to add to this post; it applies to all discourse, on any side of the argument, and whilst it’s tagged as “ace discourse” it’s not exclusively so—I just don’t know the appropriate tags for most things.

[adiscourseblog]

Hm. Methinks exclusionists need to back off and see how overwhelming the support for aspecs belonging in LGBTQIA+ spaces is.

Exclusionists are a vocal minority; yes, what they say hurts—both emotionally and in terms of accessible support—but there isn't many of them, comparatively. The LGBTQIA+ community stands by you. You are valid as a part of the community. Aces belong in the Queer community. It’s okay, you’re not stealing resources, you’re not homophobic for being ace or wanting to be a part of the community. It’s okay, you have overwhelming support.

I'M DOING AN EXPERIMENT

To prove something to a friend, please

REBLOG IF YOU THINK ASEXUALS BELONG IN LGBTQ+ SPACES

LIKE IF YOU THINK ASEXUALS DON’T BELONG IN LGBTQ+ SPACES

[adiscourseblog]

@festivebluspy said:

That doesnt make any sense. "Positive" is arbitrary and doesn't mean its good. If someone were saying "aces are assholes" thats technically a positive statement (its claiming aces Are something, not are not) but that does not mean its good.

Why is "aces are lgbt" required for you to be valid and feel good about yourselves anyway? Why is it that you feel that is a "good" statement? True or not, why is being part of an oppressed group a good thing? "Aces should be supported" is what you think you are saying, but what you really are saying by saying you're lgbt is "aces are oppressed." Which, even if its true, its not "positive" at all.

First. By your useage of “you” in terms of validation for cisgender heteroromantic asexuals, you're under the assumption that I am asexual, cisgender, and heteroromantic. Stop, because you know nothing about me And whilst I’m not disclosing my privilege at all on this blog (for the sake of my opinion bearing no more or less weight than anyone else’s whom it is known what oppression they do and don’t face), but what I will tell you is that you are wrong about at least one of those, meaning you could very well be talking to someone who is none of the above, and invalidating their entire identity. “Assume”, as I have said before, is a lovely word, as it describes exactly what it does in its own spelling!

ass u + me It makes an ass out of us both, because you assume something in order to make me seem the worst, validating anything you say, which is just a shitty thing to do, in which case, I look like a total douchebag. However, once you’re exposed as having manipulated or entirely fabricated facts, you’re the one looking like a douchebag because it shows ignorance and willingness to believe whatever you want to validate your point.

There are very few people who know exactly what oppression I do and don’t face—not just in terms of whether or not I’m queer, but also surrounding race, age, neurodivergence, disablitity, etc.—and you’re not one of them, so I suggest you don’t try to be; you can’t pull something from nothing. On the same note, I know exactly what I’m saying; again, you know nothing about me and thus have no idea what I meant or intended to say past what I did. If I meant “aces should be supported” (which they absolutely should!), I would say that. Please, don’t even try to put words in my mouth.

Secondly, positive has many, many definitions, and in this case, it is the adjective of “positivity”, meaning

the practise of being or tendency to be optimistic in attitude.

which then gives us this meaning of “positive”

constructive, optimistic, or confident

So your comment about the meaning of positive is irrelevant—and you knew that. There are plenty other homographs too, but this doesn’t mean that it’s relevant in a topic about animals to say “but bat isn’t always referring to the mammal!” In context, “aces are assholes” is not positive; it is negative. It is not optimistic, it has no good contribution to the way aces feel.

Thirdly, nobody said it’s a requirement; it’s an addition that makes people feel better because exclusionists constantly invalidate the hardships aspecs go through; I’ve been standing across from someone when someone else has threatened to rape them to “fix” them. I’ve also watched as aspecs have been mocked, threatened, and all sorts of other awful things the rest of the queer community gets too—and I’ve stepped in to defend many of them, and have done so for many years. The reason “aspecs are LGBT” is a positive is that it’s a validation of the oppression they face that so many others invalidate; no, being oppressed is not a positive thing, but people acknowledging that oppression is, as it’s how we work to fix things.

Again, it’s really not that hard a concept, and you’re quite obviously grasping for straws at this point; when you have to pick on homonyms, of all things, to make an argument. And the fact you’re deciding to pick on homographs when you’re failing to use correct punctuation is amusing—because “its” and “it’s”, “thats” and “that’s” have different meanings, and are homophones, so at least there’s a far more discernible difference between them than the meanings of positive, so you should really work on yourself first before you start hounding other people for a much less obvious thing.

@terfsafeuserboxes @hate-police @azzy-against-aphobes @carlosthescientistagainstterfs @2d-against-aphobes @robotbisexual

I figured at least some of you would have something you would like to add to this, and I’m sure I’ve likely missed something, no matter how long I spent on this response; it’s late, and I have work to do.

This is discourse, and it’s in the positivity tag. But sure, there’s only a problem with it when exclusionists do it.

@adiscourseblog do you agree that the posts I’ve screenshotted should also stay out of the positivity tag since they’re also discourse?

Also, the reasons or the fact that I tagged the post as ace positivity isn’t the argument. Can we please stop talking about it? It’s a tired argument that goes in circles. What my argument is that’s being missed is countless other people post stuff in the ace positivity tag that doesn’t really belong there. When I’m being critical of hypocrites who cross tag with ace discourse and ace positivity, the ace positivity tag is a good place to put the post, because the people who do it browse the positivity tag.

Can we please talk about the real issue instead of picking apart the thing that doesn’t matter?

[adiscourseblog]

One is a positive, the other is a negative. It's really not that hard.

If it's negative, it does not belong. If it is positive, it does, regardless of if it's a controversial opinion or not.

This is discourse, and it’s in the positivity tag. But sure, there’s only a problem with it when exclusionists do it.

@adiscourseblog do you agree that the posts I’ve screenshotted should also stay out of the positivity tag since they’re also discourse?

Also, the reasons or the fact that I tagged the post as ace positivity isn’t the argument. Can we please stop talking about it? It’s a tired argument that goes in circles. What my argument is that’s being missed is countless other people post stuff in the ace positivity tag that doesn’t really belong there. When I’m being critical of hypocrites who cross tag with ace discourse and ace positivity, the ace positivity tag is a good place to put the post, because the people who do it browse the positivity tag.

Can we please talk about the real issue instead of picking apart the thing that doesn’t matter?

[adiscourseblog]

Whoops, it's midnight and I made an assumption that this was about me because not all the images had loaded, due to mobile Tumblr being a pain; I apologise, once again.

Discourse means a debate. Voicing an opinion that is solely validation is not discourse. None of the screenshot posts are discourse (though the first is ebbing toward it), which is entirely different from a post that has absolutely zero positivity at all.

This is discourse, and it’s in the positivity tag. But sure, there’s only a problem with it when exclusionists do it.

@adiscourseblog do you agree that the posts I’ve screenshotted should also stay out of the positivity tag since they’re also discourse?

Also, the reasons or the fact that I tagged the post as ace positivity isn’t the argument. Can we please stop talking about it? It’s a tired argument that goes in circles. What my argument is that’s being missed is countless other people post stuff in the ace positivity tag that doesn’t really belong there. When I’m being critical of hypocrites who cross tag with ace discourse and ace positivity, the ace positivity tag is a good place to put the post, because the people who do it browse the positivity tag.

Can we please talk about the real issue instead of picking apart the thing that doesn’t matter?

[adiscourseblog]

Update: I have successfully removed my original post from the positivity tag.

This is discourse, and it’s in the positivity tag. But sure, there’s only a problem with it when exclusionists do it.

@adiscourseblog do you agree that the posts I’ve screenshotted should also stay out of the positivity tag since they’re also discourse?

Also, the reasons or the fact that I tagged the post as ace positivity isn’t the argument. Can we please stop talking about it? It’s a tired argument that goes in circles. What my argument is that’s being missed is countless other people post stuff in the ace positivity tag that doesn’t really belong there. When I’m being critical of hypocrites who cross tag with ace discourse and ace positivity, the ace positivity tag is a good place to put the post, because the people who do it browse the positivity tag.

Can we please talk about the real issue instead of picking apart the thing that doesn’t matter?

[adiscourseblog]

It wasn't tagged as ace positivity, and I apologise that it came up in the tags; I didn't intend for it to do so—I even tried to avoid putting "ace" and "positivity" together in the hopes it would be enough.

I didn't post to the tag (which you've done, again), my post showed up in the tag when I attempted to avoid it, and, again, I apologise that it did; I wasn't even aware that it did until just now. It's not a "good place" to ACTUALLY TAG IT because it then shows up on people's dashboards and in all sorts of other places.

Putting it in the positivity tag is damaging; it comes up on people's dashboards when you tag it, which is harmful. I never said it's okay when inclusionists do it—in fact, I condemned inclusionists as well in my response to you.

Don't tag it as positivity when it's not, and do your best to avoid it showing up in the tags, on both sides; it does more harm than good to allow these things to leak into the tags, whether intentional or not, and I'm going to see if I can remove my original post from the ace positivity tag. Which I didn't tag it as, meaning at least I made an attempt to keep it out.

This is discourse, and it’s in the positivity tag. But sure, there’s only a problem with it when exclusionists do it.

@adiscourseblog do you agree that the posts I’ve screenshotted should also stay out of the positivity tag since they’re also discourse?

Also, the reasons or the fact that I tagged the post as ace positivity isn’t the argument. Can we please stop talking about it? It’s a tired argument that goes in circles. What my argument is that’s being missed is countless other people post stuff in the ace positivity tag that doesn’t really belong there. When I’m being critical of hypocrites who cross tag with ace discourse and ace positivity, the ace positivity tag is a good place to put the post, because the people who do it browse the positivity tag.

Can we please talk about the real issue instead of picking apart the thing that doesn’t matter?

[adiscourseblog]

The trans example was the first that came to mind, however, the biphobia example does make it a bit easier because of those parallels—see what we mean by the backhanded positivity now? Validation + Inclusion = wholly positivity (because "yes and yes!") Validation + Exclusion = partially positivity (because "yeah, but nah.")

@getthisoutofthetag

Discourse is a discussion; just because people may voice an opinion on something doesn’t inherently make it discourse. Positivity includes validation; just because it can start a debate doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong there.

“Trans girls are real girls” can start a debate too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in the positivity tag, it’s the same sort of thing with “aces and aros are LGBTQIA+”. Please, leave people be.

[adiscourseblog]

Apologies, I won't use it again, I just find it easier to type (I'm on mobile right now).

I never said they are the same, but they're giving the same sort of message; "trans girls don't belong in women's spaces" and "aces don't belong in LGBTQIA+ spaces", rather than "aces who have sex aren't asexual". There's not going to be an exactly perfect example. How about we do it with a different example: biphobia, since the same sort of thing happened a while back (and it's still going on, just not as the massive blowup that ace discourse is right now). "Bisexuals are valid but they're straight passing so they're not LG(B)T+", which is the same argument used for asexuals, and as an inclusionist, I'm sure you're aware of this.

@getthisoutofthetag

Discourse is a discussion; just because people may voice an opinion on something doesn’t inherently make it discourse. Positivity includes validation; just because it can start a debate doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong there.

“Trans girls are real girls” can start a debate too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in the positivity tag, it’s the same sort of thing with “aces and aros are LGBTQIA+”. Please, leave people be.

[adiscourseblog]

@getthisoutofthetag, finished the edit, apologies—I'd already posted the original response before I saw your reblog directly from me and figured it would be better to address it together, rather than have two reblog chains going.

@getthisoutofthetag

Discourse is a discussion; just because people may voice an opinion on something doesn’t inherently make it discourse. Positivity includes validation; just because it can start a debate doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong there.

“Trans girls are real girls” can start a debate too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in the positivity tag, it’s the same sort of thing with “aces and aros are LGBTQIA+”. Please, leave people be.

[adiscourseblog]

Rather than tagging it as discourse, maybe tagging as “LGBTQIA+ aces” for inclusive-specific posts would be an idea, and “nonLGBT+ aces” for exclusionary-specific posts, but it’s honestly something that you’re doing more harm than good by going onto posts and telling people to take it out of the tag. YOU’RE starting discourse, whilst it may not be ace discourse specifically, you’re starting another discourse surrounding what should and shouldn’t be classed as positivity, which is incredibly counterproductive.

Before you respond to this, let me make another edit to respond to your last reblog directly from me.

Edit: "LGBT+ =/= valid, though. Saying you’re not LGBT+ doesn’t mean you’re not valid. Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely an inclusionist, but saying trans girls aren’t real girls and saying ace people aren’t LGBT+ are two very different things. If someone tried to say that ace ppl actually do experience sexual attraction, then that would instead be the equivalent of trans girls aren’t girls. In my opinion, at least." Glad to hear you’re an inclusionist, however, that still doesn’t deter from the point that saying aces aren’t queer can be very damaging and seen as an invalidation of their identity (especially with all the throwing around of “cishet”, even to trans and nonbinary non-aspec inclusionists) because it’s a backhand; it’s saying “yes, you’re valid, but you’re not valid enough to be included in [group]” which, in my personal opinion, goes very well with the trans example because “trans women are valid as women, but they’re not valid enough to be considered ‘actual’ women”, if that mKes sense?

@getthisoutofthetag

Discourse is a discussion; just because people may voice an opinion on something doesn’t inherently make it discourse. Positivity includes validation; just because it can start a debate doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong there.

“Trans girls are real girls” can start a debate too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in the positivity tag, it’s the same sort of thing with “aces and aros are LGBTQIA+”. Please, leave people be.