#discourse sorry

[praise-the-lord-im-dead]

I wasn't expecting a genuinely thoughtful article about humanizing kids today, but it makes me happy to see it.

(If the paywall on this gets you, type '12ft.io/' right before the web address in the search bar. It should return a clean copy)

^ one of the parts I thought was cool

[dimsilver]

conservatives who think posting a photo of a model-looking conservative woman next to a photo of a normal-looking or overweight or blue-haired liberal woman constitutes a slam-dunk ideological argument: I am Biting you

[brown-little-robin]

I VOTED!

[brown-little-robin]

from The Dragon, a satirical fable by Yevgeny Schvarts, written during the Stalinist era

"Dragon," poem assembled using quotations from Wikipedia articles

[owlpero]

free will is all about headcanoning your faves as autistic

[praise-the-lord-im-dead]

Making art isn't *about* struggle, but it does involve a process of running up against your physical limitations (mental image library, hand steadiness, materials you have access to, to name a few) and seeing the result of those physical limits and what you had in your head.

Like a baby from two parents, the result is always going to be a bit of a surprise! A lot of artists feel shame and disappointment over it, but the process of getting comfortable with the physical manifestation of your vision is one of getting to know and love and accept yourself and the world around you a little more fully.

I feel bad that generative AI means that by avoiding the initial discomfort of having limitations, a lot of people are going to keep on living feeling ashamed of themselves for being the beautiful, interesting humans they are.

[brown-little-robin]

You ABSOLUTELY do not have to answer this if you don’t feel comfortable doing so, but what is a “side b” Christian? I tried looking it up but the results were kinda vague :/

Hey, thanks for asking! (this ask is in reference to this post btw)

Okay, so, "side B" is a term that some Christians use to describe how they fit into the wide debate of how the Church should address same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria—basically, how the church should deal with LGBTQ+ issues. The term "side B" is used alongside the terms "Side A" and "Side X", which I'll explain to the best of my knowledge in a moment.

Before I start, though, I'm not an expert on the history of these terms. Here's one source that might get you started, but I have not done extensive research on this, so take this with a grain of salt! <3

Also, note: The topic of transgender people is a little bit blurry in these frameworks, with some people agreeing mostly with one "side" on attraction but agreeing mostly with another on gender dysphoria.

"Side A" Christians (the typically more liberal side) believe that the Bible (and/or God, in cases where people don't believe the Bible is the arbiter of truth) supports LGBTQ+ people acting on same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. So, according to this worldview, same-sex attraction is not a sin; same-sex marriage and relations are not a sin; and so the Church should speak publicly about and embrace LGBTQ+ relationships, transitions, and/or lifestyles. In my experience, Side A Christians usually point out that the Greek word translated "homosexual" in the New Testament refers to pedophiles (instead of?) (as well as?) people living in homosexual relationships. Again, though, I haven't done full research on that one. "Side X" Christians (the typically more conservative side) believe that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria are sins, and that therefore the Church should not speak about and/or should completely denounce same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. They may believe in what's sometimes called "Pray the Gay Away": the belief that if you have enough faith in God and/or pray hard enough, He will take away your same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. "Side B" Christians believe that the Bible says that all people struggle with temptations to sin, including, for some, sexual attraction to the same sex and/or gender dysphoria, and so the Church should not deny that these struggles exist or act like the people who struggle with them are any worse than anyone struggling with heterosexual lust or any other sin—but that the Bible also has a clearly stated framework that Christian marriages should fit into: one man and one woman, having sex only in a marriage. Side B Christians typically believe that the Church should not ignore the fact that there are LGBT+ Christians, nor should it embrace same-sex relations. Instead, it should acknowledge the struggle of having same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria and provide compassion, give life direction that is toward God and not toward the world, and just... you know... not isolate and whisper about such Christians like they're any worse than anyone struggling with, like, selfishness or jealousy or gambling or addiction or any other desire of the flesh. EDIT: A Side B perspective typically does not state that attraction or dysphoria themselves are sins. Those are temptations (and/or struggles), and like the post linked here (this post) says, temptation is not the same as sin (acting on temptation). Yeah, personally, I agree most with the Side B perspective. It seems the most Biblically sound perspective to me.

"Side A" and "Side B" are usually descriptors used only by Christians who identify with LGBTQ+ attraction and/or gender identity. So, people may call themselves "Side B bi", for example, as a shorthand for saying "I'm attracted to both genders, but I believe that it is only okay to have sex under the Biblical marriage framework". But I find the terms "Side A" and "Side B" a useful framework to describe worldviews in general, even for heterosexual people who identify with their biological sex. Use your own discretion about that one. I personally sometimes call myself "Side B" out of convenience, although I don't have same-sex attraction, but I strive to be respectful and compassionate to those who use "Side B" to indicate that they personally struggle with same sex attraction, and so I don't go throwing the term around willy-nilly. By the way, I do technically fall under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella: aromantic asexual here (although I hold those terms loosely) with a history of mild gender dysphoria.

"Side A", "Side B", and "Side X" are simply convenient terms for broad views on sexual morality and Christian perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues. I use them when they're convenient, but strive to meet every individual person and converse with people, not broad "sides", learning how each person interprets the Bible and what their individual church history and personal context is in order to learn how they think about Biblical, Christian, social, and LGBTQ+ issues. I find that the individual conversations are far more productive and less divisive than arguing along "party lines".

[brown-little-robin]

the original information from this comes from here!

Shark finning infographic by ripetungi.

[thyfleshc0nsumed]

Btw rape play is okay not because "I'm a victim and this is how I cope," it's okay because it's play pretend. We are play pretend. We are just adults playing adult versions of house or doctor or firefighter. It's fucking play pretend.

[blakbonnet]

as i grow older and age in fandom especially, i have waning patience for 2012 style fandom wars. i don't have time for the type of person who goes "why is this the 2nd top ship on ao3 when it bugs me", i don't have the energy to be friends with people who go "i specifically expressed dislike for this ship and people still write it?" and i have absolutely no time for someone who goes "this very personal trauma i have projected onto this random character and ship should be recognized and agreed by everyone else, otherwise they're bad people"

[nyancrimew]

it's kind of problematic how some people are naked under their clothes, like, ummm ??? you're in public ?? 🤨

[redstonedust]

also im growing to hate the phrase ''hold accountable'' in discourse because its always so.... empty? like you see people saying ''sure this person apologized, but we need to hold them accountable!'' like cool. what does that mean. how can you get any more accountable than a public apology. do you want them to apologize... again? more? get a tattoo explaining their crimes so everyone they meet is informed? do you want accountability or are you repeating buzzwords because you cant find a nice way to say you just want them to disappear.

[deepcoraldragon]

List of ccs publicly supporting Tommy & Tubbo

(or who just spoke out against Dream in general. or both.) as of jan 13

I haven’t seen a list on here yet so here goes (I def forgot some people, and I’m missing a few screenshots but this took foreverrr)

Content creators explicitly siding with clingyduo

Jack

AverageHarry

Ranboo

Phil

Sneegsnag

MaxGGs (could not pick a favorite tweet)

Aimsey

Kwite

SophieTexas

ConnorEatsPants

Krinios

a6d

Bitzel (not that we’re surprised)

Ludwig apparently

RosannaPansino

KyleEff

Dean Withers, coming out of left field

Molly (melinks)

Its_blarg

Mysticat

ItsZoil I think

Michael McChill

Content creators who didn’t say anything explicitly but we can read between the lines

HannahRose

Quackity (idgaf undefeated champion)

Shelby Shubble (see Phil)

Vikkstar

People who aren’t ccs but still get an honorable mention

Sarah Simons (Tommy’s mom)

Rue (Tommy’s old roommate)

Ady Manifold

Andi (Punz's ex) (I had to cut the post, sorry)

And that's everyone I can think of rn! Please add on if I forgot someone, if new people speak out, or if you have more screenshots to share!

Edit: here's the updated version from jan 20th, and the summary list

[calliopeslyre]

[praise-the-lord-im-dead]

Actually, because I'm still riled up about this:

If you tell your kid to change their behavior, without having a conversation as to how, here's a few problems you might encounter:

- their change in behavior changes their daily routine, and you take issue with this/comment on it/etc, leaving them feeling like trying to fix the issue only made it worse and/or you're just a tyrant who's never happy with anything.

- they start avoiding all conflict with you by hiding what they're doing or avoiding you--the problem, in their mind, has shifted from 'how to be better at X' to 'how to not have my parent be unhappy with me, because that makes me feel awful' (this trend may well continue into adulthood, btw. Not great for any future relationships!)

- they genuinely try to change, it works for a while, and then, human-manner, there's a failure point and you end up having this conversation again. You still act like you don't trust them, like they never put the work in at all, and they learn that they can't afford to fail or be human around you. They don't trust you with their struggles, and they know you don't trust them. Fun little family environment you've made here.

When I make a mistake at work, I apologize and my boss asks me what could help me do better, and what problems I've been having, and how they can help. When I hurt a friend or loved one by accident, I apologize and we hug and we talk about how to fix it.

At no point do they claim I'm not really sorry or that they won't trust me again until I've proven I can do better, because that's not how adult conversations are supposed to go. That's not how communication is supposed to go. And I'm an adult. Why is this person giving their own child less grace, less consideration, less care than I get from my boss in one of the lowest-paid departments of my workplace? It's just. I can't fathom it.