#i get it edgelord you don’t care for religion. you don’t have to alienate religious members of the audience.

[demigodofhoolemere]

Me through most of Boom: Wow, this is a really solid dramatic episode.

Me when Moffat needlessly sprinkles in anti-faith sentiments without specifying that it’s blind faith in bad things that the Doctor doesn’t like, which makes it come off like the Doctor is just against religion generally:

[antifatalism]

time away from tumblr feels great. i wish it didn’t because i miss being more interested in tumblr.

im gonna start hrt. i still don’t believe in gender positivism. but i think it will help with dysphoria. rn i don’t care what people call me, i wish they didn’t call me anything except terms of endearment or funny things. honestly the more variety the better, keep it blurry

when people ask how work is going i say “like any job, it alienates me from the real people that are my employers and employees, making it hard to have a good time with them, which bums me out, and also i’d rather not have to work, so i feel alienated from the work i’m doing too”

i wish i could remember other people’s names better but maybe part of the difficulty is because of how much i don’t get along with my own

i can watch the news every day but i cannot do it while scrolling tumblr or other medias without getting, predictably, overwhelmed with information

24 yrs old i still don’t feel comfortable with comma usage

hmm what else

i went to a doctor re panic issues being esp bad lately due to sinus/lung issues probably caused by allergies. the doctor gave me zyrtec and prilosec. i am on pharmaceuticals for the first time in like five years or more but i figure wth

i agree that vegans as a culture are mostly annoying and complicit with capitalism and stuff. but i hate how anarchists act like radicalism in general isn’t complicit with capitalism (see: how many of us shopped at Hot Topic as kids; edgelord cultures; etc) and erase the radical roots that veganism has (ALF; ELF; hunting sabotage: food not bombs; etc.) like sure, criticize and speculate about why veganism has lent itself so apparently easily to the metastasizing of the bourgeois health food market, how vegan culture at large (as represented/controlled by NGO’s and market players) never developed enough critical concern for human issues. but if when it comes down to it, like Peter Gelderloos, you think veganism is harmful “like a religion” because of a basic difference in ethics between it and yourself, and then you don’t even say what that is, because you want to base your criticism in the shared belief in ecological sustainability and anti-ethnocentrism and liberation from all forced vertical organization /etc., then you just aren’t facing the actual difference between your thought and ours: vegans consider the issue of consent, we don’t believe in harassing. touching, harming, fuck no eating, another animal’s body without apparent consent. Which they cannot give, except outside of captivity, which like, how many people have ever had a free interaction with an animal that exists outside of captivity? so if you think vegans’ commitment is harmful to radical concerns for sustainable anarchistic living, or lends towards racist righteousness, or w/e, consider whether that means you should completely disregard the claim to consent. Whether you should behave like the issue of consent isn’t an issue at all. Don’t mystically claim there’s a transcendental feeling you experience when hunting, a connectedness to an ecosystem. Put your feeling in terms of consent. Did your transcendental feeling qualify as apparent consent from the individual creature you killed or objectified? And if it didn’t, can you just fucking admit that? And explain why you had to “transcend” consent? (Like, you were threatened, or you were starving, or even “i had some kind of obscure carnivorous instinct” would contribute a little explanation.) because sure, people eat animals, they often don’t have options otherwise, humanity on the whole learned they had to brutalize other creatures in order to survive. But there is nothing transcendental about having to consciously overstep another creature’s consent. It’s religious to think there is. animatistic, even. it isn’t religious to expect people who eat meat and engage with animals in captivity to figure out how to admit what they are doing, to agree that consent is worth moral consideration, that it defines what is abuse. and if you just don’t think it’s necessary to consider an animal’s consent, but rather that a non-human animal is just an object for your use, then i’m distrustful about how you look at consent and abuse in general. 

and i’m not trying to make a point about nonviolence or pacifism. i don’t think we should get righteous at people for hurting others. we judge them, for our own wellbeing and in our search for affinity, and then we act accordingly. this is why we value defensive violence, violence defined as reactive or preemptive, per individual. violence towards animals is rarely a person’s act of survival. it is their complicity in a kind of state violence: the state in this case is the monopoly that the idea of “human” holds over individuals’ free and personal engagement with survival, other creatures, and inevitable violences. Because of the hegemonic assumption of this relationship between humans-as-subjects and non-humans-as-others/objects, nobody can explain to each other, really, how they feel about that violence. instead, they either belligerently claim that it is necessary, or that it is evil. 

vegans have to work on understanding why violence isn’t “evil”. nonvegans have to work on talking about authentic ethical considerations made by vegans regarding the human-animal hegemony and its relationship to other systems of hegemonic violence. vegans have to recognize that yes, an expanding vegan market will play its part in capitalism, in its racist mechanisms as well. and sure, as petty radicals like to point out, vegans have to admit that a “boycott lifestyle doesn’t contribute actual change.” but if you find yourself criticizing vegans on the whole, even claiming they add nothing  to radical struggles against systems of oppression and violence, consider how you feel about applying consideration of consent to non-humans. just try it out. continue with all your criticisms, but don’t ignore this essential vegan argument. non-vegans, at large, do not consider the agency of other animals, period. or else they never think about it. or if they do, they delude themselves that it has nothing to do with human-on-human forms of violence and control, in capitalism as well as long before (and potentially beyond) it. i think it’s nuts that people could just honestly believe that 1. [nonhuman] animals deserve no considerations of agency/consent, and 2. this consentless relationship of use has no effect on how humans, already broken into vertical classes of use and abuse for exploitative and cruel cathartic reasons, treat each other.