REQUEST CONTEST WINNER! Congratulations Zollgax!!!! Your entry was randomly selected to be drawn! Sorry it took a while. This was very fun to draw when I finally got around to it. I’m definitely putting it in my portfolio. Hope you like it, and thanks again for following.
To everybody else that entered, thanks, and there will be another contest in the future….
Q:even if the post was passive-aggressive, does that negate the points they were making? would you have preferred them to straight up call everyone who enjoys klk a rape-apologist? it seems to me like you should be able to make moral criticisms of media (esp media with themes and subjects that are p. controversial) w/o having to make a wholesale moral judgement abt the audience of that media. tbh in the whole debate you just come off as rly butthurt and defensive
theres not even a debate im talking to myself
again: im mainly responding to the responses explicitly condemning the emotional responses as ridiculous, though i wouldn’t mix a forcefully toned post like that with a wishy-washy “aww but i wont think you’re terrible if you still like this its ok” if it were me, u know. either you don’t actually have as much conviction as you’ve presented, or you’re straight up bullshitting about not thinking less of people who still like it, which is a thing called “a lie”
u know u don’t have to go on anon to call me butthurt right buddy. i’m a big kid and you can disagree with me with your name on. THOUGHT WE WERE COOL, “ANONYMOUS”.
is it really contradictory? “it’s okay to enjoy problematic things as long as you acknowledge their problems” is pretty standard & i don’t see anything wrong with it, especially considering how few options you’d have if you only watched perfect media
klk is a bit more extreme and divisive than your standard mainstream tv show making an ignorant fuckup on a social issue
this is literally the central conceit of the show. if that offends you on a deeply ethical level, it isn’t something you can like, just sort of ignore for the background characters
i don’t think klk is intrinsically destructive to women & there are many other issues i have with that post but i didnt write about them because im busy and goin places
upsettingshorts because im on my phone: yeah its about this post. http://tinycrown.tumblr.com/post/79040378192/why-kill-la-kill-is-bad-for-women-and-everyone-in
thats how i feel about it, yeah. if you are making a claim like this you need to be able to defend it wholesale. “youre not a bad person if you still like this thing even though its existence damages society!!!!” is contradictory and selfundermining and basically only exists to gaslight people who feel emotionally challenged, EVEN THOUGH YOU SHOULD WANT THAT IF YOURE MAKING THIS ARGUMENT i hate tumblrs weird passagg avoidance culture
when your entire argument is premised on “my opinion isnt just an opinion, it speaks for an important and impactful moral issue”, you dont really get to deflect the perception of your argument being presented as something that transcends a basic statement of preference. if your argument is the only moralistically valid one, those which disagree are *necessarily* wrong. you dont get to say that something is actively destructive to a body of people and at the same time assure people that they are welcome to disagree or that their differing interpretations are not a reflection of poor character when the core premise of your argument explicitly prohibits this from being true.
you can’t, and shouldnt, abdicate responsibility for the weight of your assertions for the sake of interpersonal conflict avoidance — or rather, avoidance of the perception that this conflict was unintentional and that those who feel emotionally criticised are being hysterical — and i think it’s fundamentally dishonest to do so. evading an emotional response to a moralistic claim by pretending it your claim isnt one is passive aggressive and manipulative, and undermines the basic persuasive goal of your argument.
if you are going to make a moralistic argument, fucking own it. dont go down that path if you arent prepared to justify yourself on a very interpersonal level with the people you are addressing and implicitly ascribing an inferior moral character.
yes this is about the klk thing. no vaguepost
Do you ever have a problem where you just don’t know how to reply to an argument, not because you don’t know the answer, but you just don’t know where to begin? Like, the foundation of knowledge you’d need to impart to this person before you could even begin to drag them out of their sinkhole of ignorance would cost thousands of dollars if it were coming from a university?
he’s probably really bad at planking. I just thought about that. he’d totally try it. “am I doing it right? hey. hey. am I - am I doing - hey”
ONNNNE day only, commissions. Ten bucks gets you a digital sketch. It might be a head. It might be a bust. It might be a full body. You just don’t know. You just don’t know. Please send references. Ten slots, let’s roll.
- ipgdGAME OVER all TEN slots sold to ipgd for “ridiculously corpulent Bob”.
GETTIN MY DOLLARS’ WORTH
this is unrelated to the drama but I’ve always kinda struggled with the question of how much leeway a person who doesn’t or couldn’t yet know how to talk Tumblr ought to have
cuz sure, there’s a threshold beyond which if they still don’t get it they’re on their own, but it does take a while to figure out what tumblr is all about
it’s not a hivemind, but there is a higher expectation of clarity of expression born of the rapid proliferation of posts sans way to amend them afterwards. And THAT part is what people struggle with the most at first, I think.
tumblr has made itself inaccessible on purpose. tumblr is that guy who doesnt want casuals coming in and trying to play its favorite game. you have to grind your social justice jargon and euphemistic speech patterns on your own before you’re even allowed to engage in a conversation, and if you dare try before you’re so up to speed you probably don’t even need to be having the conversation in the first place, you can expect to be derailed into a sand pit of semantics and thinly veiled personal attacks
i think people certainly deserve a lot more leeway than they currently have, because the present bar of leniency is effectively set at a level which is impassible except by those who are already going to agree with next to everything you say. which is great if all you want to do is masturbate and grandstand and feel better than outsiders, but not so much if you’re actually interested in convincing anyone of anything. you’d be surprised how easy it is to change people’s minds when you moderate your own jargon and deliberately speak with an audience in mind. i certainly don’t think the hardline and vitriolic stance against “”education”” stands to help anyone
if you’re not interested in presenting yourself in a way that is reasonably digestible to someone who is not a clone of you with identical experiences, or in the effort doing so requires, it’s really better to just not engage at all